Sri S.Madhusudhan Rao

1C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION) – CUM

– ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NARSIPATNAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in CC No: 192/2015

Date of offence:Prior to 07-01-2010

Date of Complaint or report:13-12-2010

Date of apprehension of accused :09-01-2010 (A1 to A4), 01-05-2010 (A5) and 30-04-2010 (A6) Date of release on bail:On Bail

Date of commencement of trial:04-07-2023

Date of close of trial:20-06-2024

Date of sentence or order:26-12-2024

Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Nathavaram Police Station. Name of the Accused: A1) Kommoju Siva Kumar, s/o Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years, Document writer at Kotavuratla, R/o D.No.2-172, Saradanagar, Narsipatnam. A2) Issarapu Srinivasarao, s/o Late Satyanarayana, aged about 40 years, Sivapuram, Narsipatnam. A3)NallalaGovind,s/oLate Satyanarayana, aged about 38 years, Godicherla village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A4) Adduri Durga Rao, s/o Late Rajulu, aged about 28 years, China Doddigallu village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A5) Papakayala Rampandu, s/o Apparao, aged about 32 years, China Doddigallu village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A6) Kalagani Seshagiri Rao @ China, s/o Late Baburao, aged about 44 years, Payakaraopeta village, Tuni Mandal. (The case against A1 was split up vide

CC No.139/2023 on 14-02-2023)

Offence: U/sec.420,379,463,465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Finding: Found not guilty 2C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

Sentence or Order: In the result, the Accused No.2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 420,417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

3C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION) – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

(FAC) Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

Thursday, this is the 26 th day of December, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO: 192/2015

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nathavaram Police Station.

...Complainant.

And: A1) Kommoju Siva Kumar, s/o Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years, Document writer at Kotavuratla, R/o D.No.2-172, Saradanagar, Narsipatnam. A2) Issarapu Srinivasarao, s/o Late Satyanarayana, aged about 40 years, Sivapuram, Narsipatnam. A3) Nallala Govind, s/o Late Satyanarayana, aged about 38 years, Godicherla village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A4) Adduri Durga Rao, s/o Late Rajulu, aged about 28 years, China Doddigallu village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A5) Papakayala Rampandu, s/o Apparao, aged about 32 years, China Doddigallu village, Nakkapalli Mandal. A6) Kalagani Seshagiri Rao @ China, s/o Late Baburao, aged about 44 years, Payakaraopeta village, Tuni Mandal.

(The case against A1 was split up vide CC No.139/2023 on 14-02-2023)

.....Accused 1 to 6.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19-12-2024 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P. Rajarao, Learned Counsel for Accused No.2 to 4 and Sri P. Nageswararao, Learned Counsel for Accused No.5 and 6 having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Nathavaram PS filed charge sheet in

Cr. No.02/2010 against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 379,463,465,120-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that : Prior to the four months back to the date of offence LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju went to Kotavuratla 4C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

Registrar Office and got registered Ac.7.50 cents on the name of his grand daughter through PW3 and he left the Pattadar Pass Book and Title deed at

PW3 and asked him and send it later, later LW1 Lalam Atchhiraju asked PW3 to send his Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed books, on which he stated that some body committed theft of the said books, thereupon LW1 thought that he will obtain duplicate pattadar pass book and title deed on which he is not willing to give police report in this aspect, after few days, LW7/Adari Ravi visited PW2, who is VRO of Y.D.Peta showed the pattadar pass book of LW1 by fixing another person photo after removing the photo of LW1 on pass book, and got forged the signature of MRO on the pass book and title deed and also forged the signature of Y.D.Peta VRO on 10(1) Adangal and asked PW2 whether they are genuine books and original adangal copies, on that PW2 observed the said books and identified them that they belongs to LW1, basing on the said Survey Numbers mentioned in the pattadar pass books are informed to LW1, there upon he came to know that the pattadar pass book and title deed was committed theft by some persons and hatched up criminal conspiracy and got forged the signatures of

MRO and VRO and tried to dispose the land. Hence the report.

2-a)Basing on the report of LW1 Lalam Atchhiraju, PW7 registered as a case in Cr. No.02/2010 against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 379,463,465,120-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 took up investigation, during the course of investigation and Sec.420 r/w 511 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 was added and visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, drafted mediators report, recorded the confession statements of accused and examined witnesses PW1 to PW3, LW1 Lalam Atchhiraju, LW4 Lalam

Atchhiraju @ Apparao, LW6 Yellapu Srinivas and LW7 Adari Ravi and recorded their statements and on 09-01-2010 he arrested A1 to A4, on 01-05-2010 he arrested A5 and 30-04-2010 he arrested A6 and produced them before Hon’ble

AJFCM, Narsipatnam seeking Judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation his successor PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3)This case was taken on file for the offence under section 5C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM 420,379,463,465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Accused No.1 to 6 by registering the case as CC No. 172/2015.

4)On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to A2 to A6 as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5)Accused No.2 to 6 were examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 and the charges under section 420,379,463,465 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 are framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, on their behalf. No material objects were marked. The Learned APP gave up evidence of LW4 Lalam Atchhiraju @

Apparao, LW9 Nandipalli Venkata Ramana, LW12 Surndra Sahu and LW13 Md.

Moinuddin Hasan Khan. This court closed the evidence of LW6 Yellapu Srinivas,

LW7 Adari Ravi and LW1 Lalam Atchhiraju as he was abated on 29-05-2023.

7)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, this accused No.2 to 6 were examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 along with other accused stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence and the case against A1 was separated from

CC 192/2015 and new CC No.139/2023 was assigned for the case against A1.

8)Heard both sides.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 420,379,463,465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

10)POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, as already noted, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P9.

6C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

11)PW1 deposed before the Court that, LW1 Lalam Atchiraju is his grand father, who is no more now, LW3 Darlapudi Krishna was VRO of their village, he know LW4 to LW8, four months prior to 01-07-2010, he, LW1 Lalam

Atchiraju and his sister Pyla Sambini went to sub registrar office Kotavuratla for registering land to an extent of Ac.7.50 cents in survey Number 152/3, 152/4 of

Y.D.Peta village to his sister Pyla Sambini which was standing in the name of his grand father LW1 Lalam Atchiraju, where in they approached LW5 Lalam Govind who is a private document writer and after drafting the document they left the

Pattadar Passbooks with the LW5 Lalam Govind and asked him to secure it, after 2 months his grand father LW1 Lalam Atchiraju telephoned LW5 Lalam

Govind with regarding to the Passbooks and asked him to send them back, for which he replied that the said Pattadar Passbook was stolen by some one, as they could obtain duplicate passbooks from revenu authorities his grand father

LW1 Lalam Atchiraju did not prefer any police report, while so on 01-07-2010, one person by name Adari Chinna approached LW3 Darlapudi Krishna, the then

VRO, Y.D.Peta and submitted the pattadar passbook pertaining to survey number 152/3, 152/4 stating that some one approached him with an offer to sell the land under said survey numbers, and asked him to verify the passbooks, on verification LW3 Darlapudi Krishna confirmed that the passbooks are fabricated by changing the name of the original patta holder i.e., LW1 Lalam Atchiraju and forging the signatures of MRO and also the signatures of VRO on Passbooks and 10(1) Adanglas, the same was informed to his grand father LW1 Lalam

Atchiraju by LW3 Darlapudi Krishna the then VRO, Y.D.Peta, his grand father

LW1 Lalam Atchiraju preferred complaint before SHO Nathavaram, his grand father LW1 Lalam Atchiraju is educated, he personally did not submit any record pertaining to the land in survey 152/3,152/4 of Y.D.Peta village, standing in the name of his grand father LW1 Lalam Atchiraju to the police., he can identify signature of his grand father LW1 Lalam Atchiraju, the said signature in the bottom of report enclosed with FIR belongs to his grand father LW1 Lalam

Atchiraju, police further informed that there is team behind the offence and they also traced 3 out of them and they are A1, A2 and A6.

7C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

12)PW2 deposed before the Court that, on 07-01-2010, LW7 Adari Ravi approached him with regarding to a land in Y.D.Peta revenue limits as an enquiry for the purchase of the same and he also brought passbooks of the vendors, on perusing those passbooks it was seen that the passbooks were standing in the name of Lalam Atchhiraju/LW1 but the photograph affixed in not of him and that he informed the same to the passbook holder Lalam

Atchhiraju/LW1, on that LW1 came to him verified the passbooks and made a report to police, Nathavaram, in that regard police examined him and recorded his statement, the photograph of A4 was affixed in the passbook which was produced before him by LW7 Adari Ravi, in the name of Lalam Atchhiraju/LW1.

13)PW3 deposed before the Court that, he do not know the persons who are appearing before this Court now, he do not know anything about the case, police neither examined him nor recorded his statement and at that the

Learned APP declared PW3 as hostile and sought permission to cross examine

PW3, in cross examination, PW3 denied the suggestions that he had stated

before police as in his statements under section 161 Cr.P.C, therefore the

contradictory portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P1, except that the Learned APP could not elicit anything against the accused or in favour of the prosecution.

14)PW4 deposed before the Court that, he worked as village sarpanch in the year, 2006, being Sarpanch, he used to visit Nathavaram police station at the request of police and used to act as mediator, likewise in the year, 2010 he acted as mediator for several cases, he do not remember whether he acted as mediator for this case or not, he do not know the accused, Ex.P2 signature shown at serial No.1 on the mediator report dated 29-04-2010 is belongs to him but he do not know the contents of the same and at that the Learned APP declared PW4 as hostile and sought permission to cross examine PW4, in cross examination, PW4 denied the suggestions and could not elicit anything against the accused or in favour of the prosecution.

15)PW5 deposed before the Court that, he did not acted as mediator for this case, he do not know the accused, Ex.P3 signature shown at serial No.2 8C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM on the mediator report dated 29-04-2010 is belongs to him but he do not know the contents of the same, he signed the same at the instance of police nearly 15 years ago but he do not know for what purpose the police obtained his signature and at that the Learned APP declared PW5 as hostile and sought permission to cross examine PW5, in cross examination, PW5 denied the suggestions and could not elicit anything against the accused or in favour of the prosecution.

16)PW6 deposed before the Court that, nearly 10 years ago, at the request of his village elders he went to police station, Nathavaram and he signed on some papers but he do not know what was scribed in the said papers and for what purpose his signatures were obtained, Ex.P4 signature at serial No.1 of

Page No.3 of confession and mediator report shown to him is belongs to him, but he do not know the contents of the same and at that the Learned APP declared PW6 as hostile and sought permission to cross examine PW6, in cross examination, PW6 denied the suggestions and could not elicit anything against the accused or in favour of the prosecution.

17)PW7 deposed before the Court that, on 07-01-2010 at about 12:30

PM, while he was present in the police station, LW1 Lalam Atchiraju presented a

Ex.P5 written report before him,basing on Ex.P5 he registered as a case vide

Ex.P6 FIR in Cr.No.02/2010, U/Sec.379,463,465,120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, he took up investigation in this case, examined LW1 and recorded his statement at the police station and on the same day he examined PW1 to PW3, LW4 and recorded their statements, on the next day he examined LW6 and LW7 and recorded their statements, on 08-01-2010 at about 08:30 PM, he arrested the A1

Kommoju Shiva Kumar and seized Pattadar Passbook of LW1 Lalam Atchiraju in the presence of mediators PW6, LW9 Nadipalli Venkata Ramana,Ex.P7 is the relevant portion in Page No.2 of confession and mediator report dt:08-01-2010 marked in red portion, starting with “Sadaru Documentlalo” ending with “Maa

Samaksham lo swadeena Parchukunnaru” in Page No.3, on the information given by A1 with regard to A2 they proceeded to Sivapuram Area, Narsipatnam

Town, arrested A2 at 10:00 PM and proceeded to the police station along with

A1 and A2 and handed over to surveillance team and on the same night after 9C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM receiving credible information about A3 and A4, he proceeded to Gudicharla

Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, at about 03:00 AM, he arrested A3 Nallala Govindu, from there they went to the house of A4 at Veeravarapupeta and arrested him at about 04:45 AM and proceeded to the police station along with A3 and A4 and on the same day he produced A1 to A4 produced them before Hon’ble AJFCM

Court seeking judicial remand and on 29-04-2010, I arrested A6 and seized one

Title Deed and Copy of Adangal from his possession, Ex.P8 is the relevant portion of confession and mediator report dt: 29-04-2010 marked in red portion, starting with “Shiva Echina Documentu Na Vadda Dachi Vunchi nanu ani

Cheppinadu” and on 01-05-2010, at about 08:00 AM while he was present in the police station A5 surrendered before him, on the same day he produced A5

before Hon’ble AJFCM Court seeking judicial remand, the seized Passbook,

Title Deed, Copy of Adangal were sent to FSL, Hyderabad seeking opinion after examination of 1) Name of Lalam Atchiraju on original Pattadar Passbook and

Original Title Deed was changed as Aalanka Atchiraju with using erasers and additions and identify the erasers and additions on the said Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed and so also for any alterations in the name of Lalam Atchiraju as

Aalanka Atchiraju in the said Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed and 2) To compare the admitted writings in certified copy of Gift Deed of document

No.173/2008 prepared by A1 with seized Adangal Copy writings, whether both the writings are same or not and whether the same are written by same person or not, thereafter he handed over his part of investigation to LW14 P.Ramesh his successor officer.

18)PW8 deposed before the Court that, he took up further investigation in the case from PW7, verified his part of investigation, he received Ex.P9 FSL report dated 03-10-2012, after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

19)At the outset, it is the case of the prosecution that, A1 to A6 conspired to sell away the property of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju by stealing his pattadar pass books, Title Deed, changing the photograph of LW1/Lalam

Atchhiraju on them, with another person Alanka Atchhiraju, forging the same with 10C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM the signatures of MRO, Nathavaram and VRO, Y.D.Peta to LW7 Adari Ravi and by that tried to cheat LW7 Adari Ravi. The said offense came to light when LW7

Adari Ravi approached PW2 for verification of the genuinity of said pattadar pass book, wherein PW2 identified that the photograph affixed was not of LW1/Lalam

Atchhiraju. From that, the commission of offense started with stealing the passbooks and title deeds of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju from the possession of

PW3 private document writer, changing the photograph of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju with some other person with name as Alanka Atchhiraju forging the signature of MRO, Nathavaram and tried to cheat LW7 Adari Ravi by offering to sell the property under said forged pattadar passbooks and title deeds. By that, LW7

Adari Ravi would remain a direct evidence being the victim whom A1 to A6 tried to cheat by giving forged pattadar passbooks and title deeds. But surprisingly, prosecution did not examine LW7 Adari Ravi.

20) When it is for the prosecution to prove the case with circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to prove each and every link of the chain, hence going with the stages of commission of offense, firstly with regard to theft of title deeds and pattadar passbooks of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju. From Ex.P1 report, LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju had left the pattadar passbooks and title deed with

PW3 the private document writer at SRO Office, Kotavuratla, during the process of registering his property in favor of his grand daughter, later after while when

LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju asked PW3 to send back the title deeds and pass books, he told him that they were stolen. From that, it is evident that the passbooks and title deeds of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju were subjected to theft from the possession of PW3. It was for PW3 to speak about LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju left his pattadar passbooks and title deeds with him and later on the same were subjected to theft, but he never spoke of the same, rather pleaded ignorentia of the case and he did not support the case of the prosecution and declared as hostile by

Learned APP. Hence there is no direct evidence to show that A1 to A6 committed theft of pattadar passbooks and title deeds from the possession of PW3. When looked into circumstantial evidence prosecution relied upon the confession report of A1 from whom the original pattadar passbook and copies of Adangal 11C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM were seized under Ex.P7 and mediator report under which police were seized title deed and fake adangal copies from A6 under Ex.P8. Surprisingly, the seizures under the said Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 though were recorded in the presence of mediators, none of the mediators supported the case of the prosecution as

PW6 who is one of the mediator for Ex.P7 was declared as hostile for non support of prosecution’s case and another mediator LW9/Nandipalli Venkata

Ramana was given up by the prosecution, where as the mediators for Ex.P8 mediator report i.e., PW4 and PW5 were also declared as hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution and moreover the Ex.P8 doesn’t even contain the signature of A6 and by that prosecution failed to prove both the seizures Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 under the respective confession and mediator reports.

When the prosecution failed to prove the very commission of theft or the possession of the stolen property with A1 to A6 no offense of theft can be attributed to A1 to A6. When no offense of the theft is made out against A1 to A6, prosecution is heavily burdened in proving the subsequent acts of commission of offense. For which the prosecution relied upon the Ex.P9 expert opinion, which was sought for sake of identifying whether name of Lalam Atchiraju was altered to Alanka atchiraju by using erasers and additions on pattadar passbook and title deed, to compared the admitted writings of copy of gift deed of document

No.173 of 2008 prepared by A1 with the seized Adangal copy writings and whether they are written by same person or not. After examination of the said documents Ex.P9 opinion was issued which spoke about the alterations in the name of Lalam Atchhiraju in title deed and passbooks that no opinion was given with regard to the required question hand writings. When the very seizure of pattadar passbooks and title deed from the possession of A1 and A6 is not proved, it is for the prosecution to examine the hand writings of A1 to A6 with the alleged alteration on pattadar passbook, title deed and adangal copies. But the prosecution secured the hand writings of A1 alone and sought for comparison wherein the expert did not give his opinion as the said adangal copies are photostat copies. Moreover, when it is the allegation of forging signatures of

MRO, Nathavaram, VRO, Y.D.Peta, the prosecution failed to seek for expert 12C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM opinion on the same. All that shows the attempt of seeking expert opinion and the opinion received under Ex.P9 are all incomplete and no offense shall be attributed to A1 and A6 from that. As discussed supra, the direct evidence of the case are Lalam Atchhiraju/LW1, PW3, LW7/Adari Ravi, the mediators/PW4,

PW5, PW6, LW9/Nandipalli Venkata Ramana, but LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju was no more, PW1 who is his grand son could not make out his case during cross examination, PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution and so also PW4 to PW6, surprisingly, LW7/Adari Ravi was not examined and the incomplete

Ex.P9 also did not come to aid of prosecution. From the afore said discussions this Court cannot conclude the prosecution was able to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and nothing is brought out to connect the Accused No.2 to 6 with the offence with which they were charged and that this court is of the opinion that the Accused No.2 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

21)In the result, the Accused No.2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 420,417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of

Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 26 th day of December, 2024.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1Makireddy Murali Mohan PW2Darlapudi Krishna PW3Lalam Govindu PW4Mutta Sivaji 13C.C.No.192/2015 AJFCM/NRPM

PW5Erla Peddi Naidu PW6Yadagiri Sathibabu PW7G. Srinivasarao, SI of Police, Nathavaram PS PW8P. Ramesh, SI of Police, Nathavaram PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P2 Signature of PW4 at serial No.1 at mediator report dated 29-04- 2010

Ex.P3Signature of PW5 at serial No.2 at mediator report dated 29-04- 2010 Ex.P4Signature of PW6 at serial No.1 of Page No.3 of confession and mediator report

Ex.P5Report of LW1/Lalam Atchhiraju

Ex.P6FIR

Ex.P7Relevant portion in Page No.2 of confession and mediator report

dt:08-01-2010 marked in red portion, starting with “Sadaru

Documentlalo” ending with “Maa Samaksham lo swadeena Parchukunnaru” in Page No.3

Ex.P8Relevant portion of confession and mediator report dt:29-04-2010 marked in red portion, starting with “Shiva Echina Documentu Na Vadda Dachi Vunchinanu ani Cheppinadu”

Ex.P9FSL report dated 03-10-2012

Material Objects Nill

PCJ(Jr.D)/NRPM (FAC) ACJ(Jr.D)/NRPM

APVS100000632024 1C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in CC No: 69/2024

Date of offence:20-06-2023 Date of Complaint or report:30-07-2023 Date of apprehension of accused :01-08-2023 Date of release on bail:On Judicial Custody Date of commencement of trial:12-12-2024 Date of close of trial:10-03-2025 Date of sentence or order:24-03-2025 Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli PS. Name of the Accused: A1) Chikkudu Kameswara Rao, s/o Late Bhaskarrao, aged about 21 years, B. Kothuru village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. A2) Seedari Mahesh @ Nitin, s/o Late Pothuraju, aged about 19 years, Kothapalli village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. Offence: U/sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Finding: Found not guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property. The Accused No.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith if they not involved in other crimes.

Sd/- M. Rohith

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APVS100000632024 2C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

CHINTHAPALLI

Present: Sri M. Rohith,

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

(FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Monday, this is the 24 th day of March, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO: 69/2024

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli Police Station.

...Complainant.

And: A1) Chikkudu Kameswara Rao, s/o Late Bhaskarrao, aged about 21 years, B. Kothuru village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. A2) Seedari Mahesh @ Nitin, s/o Late Pothuraju, aged about 19 years, Kothapalli village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District.

.....Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli PS filed charge sheet in

Cr. No.39/2023 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 20-06-2023 at about 10:00 PM, while LW1/Marri Ramesh parked his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 in front of his house in

Cheruvulavenam village and on the same day at about 23:00 hours some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor cycle and decamped with booty, he informed the same to his neighbors i.e., LW2 to LW4 viz., Gemmeli Rambabu,

Marri Nagendra, Marri Anandarao and searched the in and around places but in

APVS100000632024 3C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP vain, therefore on 30-07-2023 at about 13:00 hours he gave report to

Chinthapalli Police. Hence the report.

2-a)Based on the report of LW1 Marri Ramesh, LW8 V. Arun Kiran, SI of

Police, Chinthapalli PS registered as a case in Cr. No.39/2023 for the offense under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, took up investigation, examined

LW1 Marri Ramesh and recorded his statement, later he visited scene of offence, examined witnesses LW2 to LW4 namely Gemmeli Rambabu, Marri

Nagendra, Marri Anandarao, later on the credible information about the accused, on 01-08-2023 LW7 G. Laxmana Rao, SI of Police, Paderu PS arrested A1 and

A2 in Cr.No.116/2023 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Paderu PS, during his investigation the accused admitted their guilt and confessed that they stolen the Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 in

Cr.No.39/2023 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of

Chinthapalli PS and also recovered the same from their possession, so also recorded their detailed confession statement under the cover of mediators report

dated 01-08-2023 and sent them into Judicial remand, later on 09-11-2023, LW8

V. Arun Kiran, SI of Police, Chinthapalli PS produced the Accused No.1 and 2

before Hon’ble JFCM, Chinthapalli on execution of PT Warrant seeking Judicial

Remand, after completion of entire investigation LW8 filed charge sheet.

3)This Court took cognizance of the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused No.1 and 2 and issued summons.

4)On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5)Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 and the charges under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 are framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

APVS100000632024 4C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP tried. Hence, the trial.

6)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and No material objects were marked and the

Learned APP gave up evidence of LW3 Marri Nagendra, LW4 Marri Anandarao and LW5 Surla Apparao.

7)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8)Heard both sides.

8-a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued before this Court that the acts of the Accused No.1 and 2 are clearly established from the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. He further argued that PW1 to

PW4 corroborated the prosecution case in all aspects and therefore, the

Accused No.1 and 2 are liable for conviction.

(b)Per contra, the Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2 argued before this Court that the Accused No.1 and 2 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that the Accused were falsely implicated in this case and PW2 is a stock witness. He further argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is contradicting to each other regarding the incidents took place at the place of arrest of the Accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the

Accused is entitled for acquittal.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

APVS100000632024 5C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

POINT:

10)As this is a case punishable under section 379 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused have committed the theft of Pulsar

Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 from the possession of PW1.

11)Perused the record. Out of eight list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined five list of witnesses. In the present case on hand, PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PW2 is brother in law of PW1, PW3 is the mediator at the time of arrest of the Accused, PW4 and PW5 are the Investigating Officers in this case.

12)PW1 who is defacto complainant deposed before the Court that, on 29-06-2023 at about 5:00 PM, he parked his Black Color Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 outside his house and went to sleep and at about 10:00 PM, he found his bike was missing, immediately he verified the same with LW3 and LW4, as he could not trace his bike, after a month he made

Ex.P1 report to police about his missing bike, after two months of Ex.P1 report,

Police, Chinthapalli informed him about tracing of his bike, police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination of PW1, he admitted that, he can hear the sound of his bike if someone starts, he did not hear any sound of someone moving or starting his bike, he did not file any document that he is the owner of the said bike. He further testified that he purchased the bike just two months prior to missing of his bike and while he was about to change the registration of the said bike to his name, the bike was subject to theft, he did not submit any record to police pertaining to his purchase of the said bike, he did not see who committed theft of his bike.

13)PW2 who is brother in law of defacto complainant deposed before the Court that, on 29-06-2023 at about 10:00 PM, PW1 who is my neighbor, wake him and asked about his missing Pulsar motor cycle which he stated that he had not seen, later PW1 also called LW3 and LW4 and verified the same and

APVS100000632024 6C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP on that he along with LW3, LW4 and PW1 searched the said bike in the village but they did not find, after one month PW1 made Ex.P1 report to police about his missing bike, police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination of PW2, he admitted that he did not see who committed the bike of PW1.

14)PW3 who is mediator deposed before the Court that, on 01-08-2023

MRO informed him and LW5 to go to Paderu police station to act as mediators, at about 2.00 AM they along with SI, Constables, APSP party went to

Karakaputtu junction, Paderu mandal, after reaching there they found three people coming on two bikes from G.Madugula towards Paderu, SI stopped them, then they tried to escape and SI caught them and on questioning them about documents relating to bikes they stated there are no documents and also said that these bikes are stolen bikes, later SI enquired three members, they said they were friends, later police enquired three members individually, on that

Accused No.1 said that in fourth week of June month, 2023 at Rekula Colony

Paderu mandal they were stolen pulsar bike and at Mini Anganwadi Kendram,

Mullumetta village they had stolen pulsar bike by braking handle, then at GMR polytechnic Chinthala veedhi panchayat they had stolen KTM Duke bike by three members they are A1, A2 and Vanthala Balaraju, A1 and A2 had stolen pulsar bike at Chinthapalli mandal, Lambansingi panchayat, Cheruvulavenam village stolen pulsar bike and at also at Chinthalaveedhi panchayat Ubbettiputtu village had stolen pulsar bike by three members they are A1, A2 and Pangi Seshu, A1 said that stolen bikes are kept at B.Kothuru village, A1 belongs to G.Kothuru village, Korra Srinu and A2 also stated the same, the said enquiry taken place from 2.00 AM to 4:00 AM, later they signed on Ex.P2 confession report, later, police asked A1 to show where stolen bikes are kept then we along with police searched at Podapalli Panchayat, Bandaveedhi Post, B.Kothuru village, there they found three bikes near A1’s house and police has seized bikes under the cover of Ex.P3 seizure report and arrested accused persons, then himself,

APVS100000632024 7C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP accused persons, LW5 along with police signed on Ex.P3 seizure report.

During his cross examination he admitted that, Karakaputti Junction is dark at the time of 2:00 AM, no one roams around 2:00 AM at the said junction, he was present at the scene of offence, in his presence police seized bike, the mediators report was prepared at police station and he was signed on it, the confession report was also wrote at police station in which he signed on it.

15)PW4 who is Investigation Officer deposed before the Court that, on 01-08-2023, he received information that three persons are coming on motorcycles without any documents of motorcycles, and on the same day at about 02:00 PM, while conducting vehicle checking at Karakaputtu Junction,

Paderu Mandal along with mediators PW3 and LW5 and his staff, at that time 03 persons on two motorcycles came towards Paderu, on seeing them they tried to escape but they could able to catch them and enquired about the documents of motorcycles but they did not show any documents and they confessed that they were stolen two motorcycles from Paderu and on further enquriry they revealed their identity particulars as one Chikkudu Kaneswara Rao, Seedari Nithin and

Korra Srinu and they questioned them about the thefts if any, they have committed in the presence mediators, then A1 confessed that he had committed 4 thefts relating to motorcycles at Paderu and also they confessed that A1 and

A2 committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Kothavalasa,Vizianagaram and further confessed that they committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Nettaputtu village, Singarba Panchayath, G.Madugula Mandal and also further confessed that they committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Cheruvulaveenam village,

Lammasingi Panchayath, Chinthapalli Mandalm, then he enquired S.I. of Police,

Chinthapalli about any motorcycle thefts, then they said that one crime is registered vide Cr.No.39/2023 U/sec.379 of IPC at Cheruvulaveenam village,

Lammasingi Panchayath of Chinthapalli PS, then A2 and Korra Srinu also confessed the same thing as A1, they seized 02 motorcycles i.e., KTM Duke and

Pulsar and they drafted mediators report at the scene of offence and accused,

APVS100000632024 8C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP mediators and along with their staff signed on mediators report, it took two hours to completed this enquiry from 02:00 PM to 04:00 PM, later they asked accused about properties which they have committed in other crimes, they said that the theft-ed properties are kept at B.Kothuru village, K.Kodapalli panchayathi of

G.Madugula Mandal which is native of A1 and on the same day they along with mediators and accused went to A1’s village, has shown at entrance of the village in bushes, 03 motorcycles, the said 03 motorcycles are Pulsar Motorcycles bearing registration Nos AP 31 DL 5497, Chasis No. MD2A11CZ9GWB19221,

Engine No. DHZWGB31734 belongs to Cr.No.39/2023 of Chinthapalli PS, AP 39

AV 7487 and AP 39 EZ 5961 are the theft-ed case properties in G.Madugula and

Paderu PS, then he had taken custody of seized property, accused persons along with mediators report, then the accused persons has sent to Judicial custody and informed to Chinthapalli PS about the arresting of these accused persons, it took 90 minutes to completed this enquiry and they drafted mediators report from 04:30 PM to 06:00 PM.

16)PW5 who is Investigation officer in the present case deposed before the Court that, on 30-07-2023 at about 13:00 hours, PW1 came to PS and lodged Ex.P1 report, regarding theft of his bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 which was occurred in between 29-06-2023 at about 23:00 hours to 30-06-2023 at about 5:00 hours at Cheruvulaveenam village, basing on the report of PW1, he registered as a case vide Ex.P4 FIR in Cr. No.39/2023 for the offence

U/sec.379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Chinthapalli PS, later he examined

PW1 and recorded his statement and visited scene of offence and drafted Ex.P5

Rough sketch and also prepared Ex.P6 scene observation report, later he examined PW2, LW3 and LW4 and recorded their statements, and on 01-08- 2024 at about 14:00 hours, he received a phone call from SHO, Paderu relating to bike which was recovered from the possession of A1 and A2, then he forwarded the records available with him, then they found records are also matched with recovered bikes, later on on 10-11-2023 he produced the accused

APVS100000632024 9C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

No.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Chinthapalli, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2.

17)It is the specific case of the prosecution that, A1 and A2 with dishonest intention taken away Pulsar bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 from the possession of PW1 without his consent. From Ex.P1 report it clearly shows that, there is a 31 days delay of lodging Ex.P4 FIR. PW1 in his cross examination he categorically deposed that he does not know about the person who taken away his bike. From the evidence of PW2, in his cross examination he categorically deposed that he does not know about the person who taken away PW1’s bike.

From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it clearly shows that they are not a direct eye witnesses to the alleged theft. From the evidence of PW3 mediator in his chief examination he categorically deposed that they went to the scene of offence on 01-08-2023 at about 2:00 AM. But from the evidence of PW4, who is

Investigation officer in his chief examination he categorically deposed that they went to the scene of offence on 01-08-2023 at about 2:00 PM. There is a contradiction between the evidence of PW3 and PW4. From the evidence of

PW5 who is investigation officer in the present case categorically deposed that he produced the Accused No.1 and 2 before Hon’ble JFCM Court, Chinthapalli on execution of PT Warrant. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the A1 and A2 with an dishonest intention taken away

Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 from the possession of PW1.

Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused No.1 and 2. As such, the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

18)In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property.

APVS100000632024 10C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

The Accused No.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith if they not involved in other crimes.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- M. Rohith

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1Marri Ramesh PW2Gammili Rambabu PW3Allangi Ganapathi PW4G. Lakshmanarao, SI of Police, Paderu PS PW5V. Arun Kiran, SI of Police, Chinthapalli PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Report of PW1 Ex.P2 Confession report Ex.P3Seizure report Ex.P4FIR Ex.P5Rough sketch Ex.P6Scene observation report

Material Objects Nill

Sd/- M. Rohith

ACJ(Jr.D)/NRPM (FAC) JFCM/CTP

APVS100000632024 1C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in CC No: 69/2024

Date of offence:20-06-2023 Date of Complaint or report:30-07-2023 Date of apprehension of accused :01-08-2023 Date of release on bail:On Judicial Custody Date of commencement of trial:12-12-2024 Date of close of trial:10-03-2025 Date of sentence or order:24-03-2025 Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli PS. Name of the Accused: A1) Chikkudu Kameswara Rao, s/o Late Bhaskarrao, aged about 21 years, B. Kothuru village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. A2) Seedari Mahesh @ Nitin, s/o Late Pothuraju, aged about 19 years, Kothapalli village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. Offence: U/sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Finding: Found not guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property. The Accused No.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith if they not involved in other crimes.

Sd/- M. Rohith

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APVS100000632024 2C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

CHINTHAPALLI

Present: Sri M. Rohith,

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

(FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Monday, this is the 24 th day of March, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO: 69/2024

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli Police Station.

...Complainant.

And: A1) Chikkudu Kameswara Rao, s/o Late Bhaskarrao, aged about 21 years, B. Kothuru village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. A2) Seedari Mahesh @ Nitin, s/o Late Pothuraju, aged about 19 years, Kothapalli village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District.

.....Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli PS filed charge sheet in

Cr. No.39/2023 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 20-06-2023 at about 10:00 PM, while LW1/Marri Ramesh parked his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 in front of his house in

Cheruvulavenam village and on the same day at about 23:00 hours some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor cycle and decamped with booty, he informed the same to his neighbors i.e., LW2 to LW4 viz., Gemmeli Rambabu,

Marri Nagendra, Marri Anandarao and searched the in and around places but in

APVS100000632024 3C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP vain, therefore on 30-07-2023 at about 13:00 hours he gave report to

Chinthapalli Police. Hence the report.

2-a)Based on the report of LW1 Marri Ramesh, LW8 V. Arun Kiran, SI of

Police, Chinthapalli PS registered as a case in Cr. No.39/2023 for the offense under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, took up investigation, examined

LW1 Marri Ramesh and recorded his statement, later he visited scene of offence, examined witnesses LW2 to LW4 namely Gemmeli Rambabu, Marri

Nagendra, Marri Anandarao, later on the credible information about the accused, on 01-08-2023 LW7 G. Laxmana Rao, SI of Police, Paderu PS arrested A1 and

A2 in Cr.No.116/2023 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Paderu PS, during his investigation the accused admitted their guilt and confessed that they stolen the Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 in

Cr.No.39/2023 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of

Chinthapalli PS and also recovered the same from their possession, so also recorded their detailed confession statement under the cover of mediators report

dated 01-08-2023 and sent them into Judicial remand, later on 09-11-2023, LW8

V. Arun Kiran, SI of Police, Chinthapalli PS produced the Accused No.1 and 2

before Hon’ble JFCM, Chinthapalli on execution of PT Warrant seeking Judicial

Remand, after completion of entire investigation LW8 filed charge sheet.

3)This Court took cognizance of the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused No.1 and 2 and issued summons.

4)On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5)Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 and the charges under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 are framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

APVS100000632024 4C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP tried. Hence, the trial.

6)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and No material objects were marked and the

Learned APP gave up evidence of LW3 Marri Nagendra, LW4 Marri Anandarao and LW5 Surla Apparao.

7)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8)Heard both sides.

8-a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued before this Court that the acts of the Accused No.1 and 2 are clearly established from the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. He further argued that PW1 to

PW4 corroborated the prosecution case in all aspects and therefore, the

Accused No.1 and 2 are liable for conviction.

(b)Per contra, the Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2 argued before this Court that the Accused No.1 and 2 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that the Accused were falsely implicated in this case and PW2 is a stock witness. He further argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is contradicting to each other regarding the incidents took place at the place of arrest of the Accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the

Accused is entitled for acquittal.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

APVS100000632024 5C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

POINT:

10)As this is a case punishable under section 379 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused have committed the theft of Pulsar

Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 from the possession of PW1.

11)Perused the record. Out of eight list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined five list of witnesses. In the present case on hand, PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PW2 is brother in law of PW1, PW3 is the mediator at the time of arrest of the Accused, PW4 and PW5 are the Investigating Officers in this case.

12)PW1 who is defacto complainant deposed before the Court that, on 29-06-2023 at about 5:00 PM, he parked his Black Color Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 outside his house and went to sleep and at about 10:00 PM, he found his bike was missing, immediately he verified the same with LW3 and LW4, as he could not trace his bike, after a month he made

Ex.P1 report to police about his missing bike, after two months of Ex.P1 report,

Police, Chinthapalli informed him about tracing of his bike, police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination of PW1, he admitted that, he can hear the sound of his bike if someone starts, he did not hear any sound of someone moving or starting his bike, he did not file any document that he is the owner of the said bike. He further testified that he purchased the bike just two months prior to missing of his bike and while he was about to change the registration of the said bike to his name, the bike was subject to theft, he did not submit any record to police pertaining to his purchase of the said bike, he did not see who committed theft of his bike.

13)PW2 who is brother in law of defacto complainant deposed before the Court that, on 29-06-2023 at about 10:00 PM, PW1 who is my neighbor, wake him and asked about his missing Pulsar motor cycle which he stated that he had not seen, later PW1 also called LW3 and LW4 and verified the same and

APVS100000632024 6C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP on that he along with LW3, LW4 and PW1 searched the said bike in the village but they did not find, after one month PW1 made Ex.P1 report to police about his missing bike, police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination of PW2, he admitted that he did not see who committed the bike of PW1.

14)PW3 who is mediator deposed before the Court that, on 01-08-2023

MRO informed him and LW5 to go to Paderu police station to act as mediators, at about 2.00 AM they along with SI, Constables, APSP party went to

Karakaputtu junction, Paderu mandal, after reaching there they found three people coming on two bikes from G.Madugula towards Paderu, SI stopped them, then they tried to escape and SI caught them and on questioning them about documents relating to bikes they stated there are no documents and also said that these bikes are stolen bikes, later SI enquired three members, they said they were friends, later police enquired three members individually, on that

Accused No.1 said that in fourth week of June month, 2023 at Rekula Colony

Paderu mandal they were stolen pulsar bike and at Mini Anganwadi Kendram,

Mullumetta village they had stolen pulsar bike by braking handle, then at GMR polytechnic Chinthala veedhi panchayat they had stolen KTM Duke bike by three members they are A1, A2 and Vanthala Balaraju, A1 and A2 had stolen pulsar bike at Chinthapalli mandal, Lambansingi panchayat, Cheruvulavenam village stolen pulsar bike and at also at Chinthalaveedhi panchayat Ubbettiputtu village had stolen pulsar bike by three members they are A1, A2 and Pangi Seshu, A1 said that stolen bikes are kept at B.Kothuru village, A1 belongs to G.Kothuru village, Korra Srinu and A2 also stated the same, the said enquiry taken place from 2.00 AM to 4:00 AM, later they signed on Ex.P2 confession report, later, police asked A1 to show where stolen bikes are kept then we along with police searched at Podapalli Panchayat, Bandaveedhi Post, B.Kothuru village, there they found three bikes near A1’s house and police has seized bikes under the cover of Ex.P3 seizure report and arrested accused persons, then himself,

APVS100000632024 7C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP accused persons, LW5 along with police signed on Ex.P3 seizure report.

During his cross examination he admitted that, Karakaputti Junction is dark at the time of 2:00 AM, no one roams around 2:00 AM at the said junction, he was present at the scene of offence, in his presence police seized bike, the mediators report was prepared at police station and he was signed on it, the confession report was also wrote at police station in which he signed on it.

15)PW4 who is Investigation Officer deposed before the Court that, on 01-08-2023, he received information that three persons are coming on motorcycles without any documents of motorcycles, and on the same day at about 02:00 PM, while conducting vehicle checking at Karakaputtu Junction,

Paderu Mandal along with mediators PW3 and LW5 and his staff, at that time 03 persons on two motorcycles came towards Paderu, on seeing them they tried to escape but they could able to catch them and enquired about the documents of motorcycles but they did not show any documents and they confessed that they were stolen two motorcycles from Paderu and on further enquriry they revealed their identity particulars as one Chikkudu Kaneswara Rao, Seedari Nithin and

Korra Srinu and they questioned them about the thefts if any, they have committed in the presence mediators, then A1 confessed that he had committed 4 thefts relating to motorcycles at Paderu and also they confessed that A1 and

A2 committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Kothavalasa,Vizianagaram and further confessed that they committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Nettaputtu village, Singarba Panchayath, G.Madugula Mandal and also further confessed that they committed theft of Pulsar Motorcycle at Cheruvulaveenam village,

Lammasingi Panchayath, Chinthapalli Mandalm, then he enquired S.I. of Police,

Chinthapalli about any motorcycle thefts, then they said that one crime is registered vide Cr.No.39/2023 U/sec.379 of IPC at Cheruvulaveenam village,

Lammasingi Panchayath of Chinthapalli PS, then A2 and Korra Srinu also confessed the same thing as A1, they seized 02 motorcycles i.e., KTM Duke and

Pulsar and they drafted mediators report at the scene of offence and accused,

APVS100000632024 8C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP mediators and along with their staff signed on mediators report, it took two hours to completed this enquiry from 02:00 PM to 04:00 PM, later they asked accused about properties which they have committed in other crimes, they said that the theft-ed properties are kept at B.Kothuru village, K.Kodapalli panchayathi of

G.Madugula Mandal which is native of A1 and on the same day they along with mediators and accused went to A1’s village, has shown at entrance of the village in bushes, 03 motorcycles, the said 03 motorcycles are Pulsar Motorcycles bearing registration Nos AP 31 DL 5497, Chasis No. MD2A11CZ9GWB19221,

Engine No. DHZWGB31734 belongs to Cr.No.39/2023 of Chinthapalli PS, AP 39

AV 7487 and AP 39 EZ 5961 are the theft-ed case properties in G.Madugula and

Paderu PS, then he had taken custody of seized property, accused persons along with mediators report, then the accused persons has sent to Judicial custody and informed to Chinthapalli PS about the arresting of these accused persons, it took 90 minutes to completed this enquiry and they drafted mediators report from 04:30 PM to 06:00 PM.

16)PW5 who is Investigation officer in the present case deposed before the Court that, on 30-07-2023 at about 13:00 hours, PW1 came to PS and lodged Ex.P1 report, regarding theft of his bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5497 which was occurred in between 29-06-2023 at about 23:00 hours to 30-06-2023 at about 5:00 hours at Cheruvulaveenam village, basing on the report of PW1, he registered as a case vide Ex.P4 FIR in Cr. No.39/2023 for the offence

U/sec.379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Chinthapalli PS, later he examined

PW1 and recorded his statement and visited scene of offence and drafted Ex.P5

Rough sketch and also prepared Ex.P6 scene observation report, later he examined PW2, LW3 and LW4 and recorded their statements, and on 01-08- 2024 at about 14:00 hours, he received a phone call from SHO, Paderu relating to bike which was recovered from the possession of A1 and A2, then he forwarded the records available with him, then they found records are also matched with recovered bikes, later on on 10-11-2023 he produced the accused

APVS100000632024 9C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

No.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Chinthapalli, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2.

17)It is the specific case of the prosecution that, A1 and A2 with dishonest intention taken away Pulsar bike bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 from the possession of PW1 without his consent. From Ex.P1 report it clearly shows that, there is a 31 days delay of lodging Ex.P4 FIR. PW1 in his cross examination he categorically deposed that he does not know about the person who taken away his bike. From the evidence of PW2, in his cross examination he categorically deposed that he does not know about the person who taken away PW1’s bike.

From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it clearly shows that they are not a direct eye witnesses to the alleged theft. From the evidence of PW3 mediator in his chief examination he categorically deposed that they went to the scene of offence on 01-08-2023 at about 2:00 AM. But from the evidence of PW4, who is

Investigation officer in his chief examination he categorically deposed that they went to the scene of offence on 01-08-2023 at about 2:00 PM. There is a contradiction between the evidence of PW3 and PW4. From the evidence of

PW5 who is investigation officer in the present case categorically deposed that he produced the Accused No.1 and 2 before Hon’ble JFCM Court, Chinthapalli on execution of PT Warrant. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the A1 and A2 with an dishonest intention taken away

Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DL 5496 from the possession of PW1.

Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused No.1 and 2. As such, the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

18)In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since no property produced before this Court, there is no order with respect to Property.

APVS100000632024 10C.C.No.69/2024 JFCM/CTP

The Accused No.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith if they not involved in other crimes.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- M. Rohith

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1Marri Ramesh PW2Gammili Rambabu PW3Allangi Ganapathi PW4G. Lakshmanarao, SI of Police, Paderu PS PW5V. Arun Kiran, SI of Police, Chinthapalli PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Report of PW1 Ex.P2 Confession report Ex.P3Seizure report Ex.P4FIR Ex.P5Rough sketch Ex.P6Scene observation report

Material Objects Nill

Sd/- M. Rohith

ACJ(Jr.D)/NRPM (FAC) JFCM/CTP

APVS100002062022 1 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in CC No: 56/2023

Date of offence:06-08-2020 Date of Complaint or report:06-08-2020 Date of apprehension of accused:06-08-2020 Date of release on bail:13-08-2020 Date of commencement of trial:24-03-2025 Date of close of trial:24-03-2025 Date of sentence or order:28-03-2025 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant:The State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli Name of the Accused:A1) Jurra Lingalamma, w/o Late Venkatesh, aged about 40 years, Peda Jadumuru village, G.K.Veedhi Mandal. A2) Rata Subbalakshmi, w/o Late Nageswararao, aged about 30 years, Peda Jadumuru village, G.K.Veedhi Mandal. Offence:U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020. Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property/MO1 two sample bottles of 250 ML each shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APVS100002062022 2 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/NRPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

CHINTHAPALLI

Present: Sri M. Rohith,

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

(FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Friday, this is the 28 th day of March, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO: 56/2023

Between: The State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli.

...Complainant.

And: A1) Jurra Lingalamma, w/o Late Venkatesh, aged about 40 years, Peda Jadumuru village, G.K.Veedhi Mandal. A2) Rata Subbalakshmi, w/o Late Nageswararao, aged about 30 years, Peda Jadumuru village, G.K.Veedhi Mandal.

.....Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for A1 and A2 having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli filed charge sheet in

Cr. No.153/2020 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibtion Act,1995 and Amendment Act, 2020.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 06-08-2020 at about 8:00 hours LW4 S. Simhadri, P & E

Inspector, Chinthapalli received credible information about possession/transportation of ID Arrack then LW4 deputed LW1 to LW3 namely

M. Suresh, P & EC, Chinthapalli, Ch. Appalanaidu, P & EC, Chinthapalli and K.

APVS100002062022 3 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/CTP

Lavanya P & EC, Chinthapalli rushed to Peda Jadumuru village of G.K.Veedhi

Mandal and found two persons were coming towards them along with two black plastic cans having illicit ID arrack without any license. They detained the accused and seized the 8 liters of ID arrack (4 liters in each can) from the scene of offence under the cover of occurrence report and taken two samples of 250

ML each from the seized contraband for chemical analysis. Later, they brought the accused and seized property to the Police Station.

2-a) LW4, basing on the above said occurrence report, registered FIR in

Cr.No.153/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 of SEB, Chinthapalli Station and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW4 examined the witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW3, recorded their statements in Case Diary Part-II, arrested the accused and produced him before Hon’ble JFCM Court,

Chinthapalli seeking Judicial remand, LW4 sent the samples of the seized property to Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition and Excise, Regional

Prohibitory Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis and received Chemical Analysis report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled arrack, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, later LW4 handed over his part of investigation to LW5 for further investigation, on obtaining the analysis report and after completion of investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020.

3) This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, against the accused

No.1 and 2 and issued summons.

4) On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5) Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal

APVS100002062022 4 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/NRPM

Procedure Code, 1973 and the charges under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 are framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 and the Learned APP gave up evidence of

LW1 M. Suresh, LW2 K. Appalanaidu, LW3 K. Lavanya and LW5 Md. Ibrahim.

7) After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(w) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

POINT:

10) In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 are sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, after scrutinizing them with due care and caution.

11) PW1 deposed before the Court that, on 06-08-2020 at about 8:00

AM, he received credible information about selling of ID Arrack at Pedajadumuru village, then he along with LW1 to LW3 conducted patrolling duties when they reached the scene of offence, they found two persons coming towards them along with plastic cans and trying to escape from that place on seeing they are tried to escape, but they could able to catch them, and on questioning the same

APVS100002062022 5 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/CTP they revealed their identity particulars and confessed that they are carrying 8 liters of ID Arrack i.e., 4 liters in each can and trying to sell the same at higher prices, they informed them selling, manufacurting, transporting, possession of ID

Arrack is offence, as no mediators are available, they drafted Ex.P1 occurrence report at the scene, and also collected MO1 two sample bottles of 250 ML each from the seized contraband, later they return to the police station along with seized property, accused, MO1 and Ex.P1, basing on Ex.P1 occurrence report he registered as a case vide Ex.P2 FIR in Cr. No.153/2020 for the offence under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, and sent the original FIR to the Hon’ble Court, he visited scene of offence and examined LW1 to LW3 and also arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and produced them before Hon’ble JFCM Court, Chinthapalli seeking Judicial custody, he also sent MO1 to chemical analysis and later he received Ex.P3 REL report, later he handed over his part of investigation to LW5 and after completion of investigation

LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12) It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 got a credible information about transportation of ID arrack on such he proceeded to Peda

Jadumuru village along with other staff members and caught hold the accused and enquired. On enquiry the accused confessed the alleged offence. On such, he arrested the accused and seized 8 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 8 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution examined PW1 who is none other than excise official, out of which LW1 is the raiding party and PW1 registered the FIR, examined the witnesses and investigated into the material part of the case failed to speak about the non securing the independent witnesses to corroborated the seizure from the possession of the accused. From the evidence of PW1 it is very much evident that the police raiding party did not make efforts to secure the presence of the mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case property.

APVS100002062022 6 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/NRPM

Further, no evidence was placed with regard to purchasing of ID arrack by the accused or selling of the same. Except the contents of Ex.P1 occurrence report, the prosecution has not placed positive material to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

13) With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. In this case also the search was made in the absence of any independent witnesses.

Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 makes it clear that “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 situated or of 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” The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S.

Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information they were right in

taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of

securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in

conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators

brought by them from a different place. But when they are

conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is

possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the

excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local

respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere

efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the

mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also

authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as

mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section

100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in

the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and

incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The

presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is

always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other

locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the

prosecution case.”

APVS100002062022 7 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/CTP

14) It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that they examined any independent witness at the scene of offense though the scene of offence is a Panchayath and it consists of School, VRO and VRA are available. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1 who is excise official. If no independent persons were examined then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as why it could not secure independent witnesses. Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case reported on 27-11-2001 Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charge in the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated U/sec.100(4) of the code. If it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate.

15) Here, it is exactly stated as to the mandatory requirement of the police to secure independent witnesses from local inhabitants. While conducting such arrest and seizure or the seizing officer has to mention the reasons as to why section 100(4) could not be followed. But in the present case, it is seen that there has been no such thing done by PW1. Further other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution to the reasons best known to them. Hence in view of foregoing discussion, this Court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 and MO.1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the Accused, on which the entire case of the prosecution rests.

So, this Court finds the charges against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

16) In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment

Act, 2020, hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure

APVS100002062022 8 C.C.No.56/2023 JFCM/NRPM

Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property/MO1 two sample bottles of 250 ML each shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1S. Simhadri, Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Occurrence report Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P3REL report

Material Objects MO1 i.e., two sample bottles of 250 ML each

ACJ(Jr.D)/NRPM

APVS100002002022 1 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in CC No: 57/2023

Date of offence:24-09-2020 Date of Complaint or report:24-09-2020 Date of apprehension of accused:24-09-2020 Date of release on bail:30-09-2020 Date of commencement of trial:24-03-2025 Date of close of trial:24-03-2025 Date of sentence or order:28-03-2025 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant:The State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli Name of the Accused:Pangi Chinnarao, s/o Late Lingayya, aged about 55 years, Chitralagoppu village, Chinthapalli Mandal. Offence:U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020. Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property/MO1 sample bottle of 250 ML shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APVS100002002022 2 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

CHINTHAPALLI

Present: Sri M. Rohith,

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narsipatnam.

(FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Friday, this is the 28 th day of March, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO: 57/2023

Between: The State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli.

...Complainant.

And: Pangi Chinnarao, s/o Late Lingayya, aged about 55 years, Chitralagoppu village, Chinthapalli Mandal.

.....Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27-03-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for Accused having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli filed charge sheet in

Cr. No.183/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibtion Act,1995 and Amendment Act, 2020.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 23-09-2020 at about 8:00 hours LW4 S. Simhadri, P & E

Inspector, Chinthapalli received credible information about possession/transportation of ID Arrack then LW4 deputed LW1 and LW2 namely

Ch. Appalanaidu, P & EC, Chinthapalli and K. Lavanya, P & EC, Chinthapalli rushed to Chitralagoppu village of Chinthapalli Mandal and found one person

APVS100002002022 3 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP was coming towards them along with black plastic can having illicit ID arrack without any license. They detained the accused and seized the 5 liters of ID arrack from the scene of offence under the cover of occurrence report and taken 250 ML sample bottle from the seized contraband for chemical analysis. Later, they brought the accused and seized property to the Police Station.

2-a) LW3, basing on the above said occurrence report, registered FIR in

Cr.No.183/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 of SEB, Chinthapalli Station and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW3 examined the witnesses i.e., LW1 and LW2, recorded their statements in Case Diary Part-II, arrested the accused and produced him before Hon’ble JFCM Court,

Chinthapalli seeking Judicial remand, LW3 sent the samples of the seized property to Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition and Excise, Regional

Prohibitory Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis and received Chemical Analysis report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled arrack, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, later LW3 handed over his part of investigation to LW4 for further investigation, on obtaining the analysis report and after completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020.

3) This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, against the accused and issued summons.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

5) Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the charges under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995

APVS100002002022 4 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP and Amendment Act, 2020 are framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 and the Learned APP gave up evidence of

LW1 Ch. Appalanaidu, LW2 K. Lavanya and LW4 Md. Ibrahim.

7) After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against him in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(w) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

POINT:

10) In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 are sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, after scrutinizing them with due care and caution.

11) PW1 deposed before the Court that, on 23-09-2020 at about 6:00

PM, he received credible information about selling of ID Arrack at Chitralaopggu village, then he along with LW1 and LW2 conducted patrolling duties when they reached the scene of offence, they found one person coming towards them along with black plastic can and trying to escape from that place on seeing them, he tried to escape, but they could able to catch him, and on questioning the same he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he is carrying 5

APVS100002002022 5 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP liters of ID Arrack and trying to sell the same at higher prices, they informed him selling, manufacturing, transporting, possession of ID Arrack is offence, as no mediators are available, they drafted Ex.P1 occurrence report at the scene, and also collected MO1 sample bottle of 250 ML from the seized contraband, later they return to the police station along with seized property, accused, MO1 and

Ex.P1, basing on Ex.P1 occurrence report he registered as a case vide Ex.P2

FIR in Cr. No.183/2020 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020, and sent the original FIR to the Hon’ble Court, he visited scene of offence and examined LW1 and LW2 and also arrested the accused and produced him before Hon’ble JFCM Court,

Chinthapalli seeking Judicial custody, he also sent MO1 to chemical analysis and later he received Ex.P3 REL report, later he handed over his part of investigation to LW4 and after completion of investigation LW4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12) It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 got a credible information about transportation of ID arrack on such he proceeded to

Chitralagoppu village along with other staff members and caught hold the accused and enquired. On enquiry the accused confessed the alleged offence.

On such, he arrested the accused and seized 5 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 5 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution examined PW1 who is none other than excise official, out of which LW1 is the raiding party and PW1 registered the FIR, examined the witnesses and investigated into the material part of the case failed to speak about the non securing the independent witnesses to corroborated the seizure from the possession of the accused. From the evidence of PW1 it is very much evident that the police raiding party did not make efforts to secure the presence of the mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case

APVS100002002022 6 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP property. Further, no evidence was placed with regard to purchasing of ID arrack by the accused or selling of the same. Except the contents of Ex.P1 occurrence report, the prosecution has not placed positive material to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

13) With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. In this case also the search was made in the absence of any independent witnesses.

Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 makes it clear that “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 situated or of 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” The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S.

Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information they were right in

taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of

securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in

conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators

brought by them from a different place. But when they are

conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is

possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the

excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local

respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere

efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the

mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also

authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as

mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section

100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in

the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and

incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The

presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is

always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other

locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the

APVS100002002022 7 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP prosecution case.”

14) It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that they examined any independent witness at the scene of offense though the scene of offence is a Panchayath and it consists of VRO, VRA, Panchayat Secretary and Ward members are available. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1 who is excise official. If no independent persons were examined then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as why it could not secure independent witnesses. Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case reported on 27-11-2001

Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charge in the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated U/sec.100(4) of the code. If it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate.

15) Here, it is exactly stated as to the mandatory requirement of the police to secure independent witnesses from local inhabitants. While conducting such arrest and seizure or the seizing officer has to mention the reasons as to why section 100(4) could not be followed. But in the present case, it is seen that there has been no such thing done by PW1. Further other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution to the reasons best known to them. Hence in view of foregoing discussion, this Court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 and MO.1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the Accused, on which the entire case of the prosecution rests.

So, this Court finds the charges against the Accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

16) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act, 2020,

APVS100002002022 8 C.C.No.57/2023 JFCM/CTP hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The case property/MO1 sample bottle of 250 ML shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. DIVISION),

NARSIPATNAM.

(FAC) JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1S. Simhadri, Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Chinthapalli

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Occurrence report Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P3REL report

Material Objects MO1 i.e., sample bottle of 250 ML

ACJ(Jr.D)/NRPM