Ms. S.priyadarshini Nuthakki

APWG180000512022 1 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE .

PRESENT :: Smt. S PRIYADARSHINI NUTHAKKI

Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE.No.27/2022

(Crime.No.356/2021 of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station)

BETWEEN:

Sub-Inspector of Police Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. …Complainant

Vs

Gadhi Anjaneyulu, s/o Kota @ Kotaiah, 26 years, r/o Nidamarru village and Mandal. Now at Putlagatlagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Smt.T.Sasi Kala, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ganga Raju, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.356/2021 for the offence under section 7-

B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020, registered by Sub

Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, with the following allegations:-

APWG180000512022 2 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

2.A brief resume of the case of the prosecution reads thus:-

That on 01.12.2021 at about 10.00 AM, on receipt of credible information, PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub Inspector of Police, Dwaraka

Tirumala Police Station, while conducting raids, along with

PW.1(G.Chiranjeevi) constable and LW.1 (M.Jayaraju) HC and after reaching at outskirts of Dorasanipadu village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, they noticed the accused in possession of a tin on Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle bearing

No.AP37CV 2902. Thereafter, on suspicion, he tried to stop him, and upon seeing them, he attempted to escape. Then, they caught hold of him and inquired. When PW.2 verified the tin, he found 40-litres of ID liquor. The accused has further confessed that he procured the same from an unknown person to sell it at a higher rate to eke out his livelihood. Thereupon, PW.2 drew a sample for sending to chemical analysis, obtained the signature of the accused on it, and brought him to the police station for further enquiries.

Thereafter, PW.2 registered a crime, arrested the accused, and sent him to judicial custody, prepared the occurrence report. During the course of investigation, PW.2 examined PW.1 and LW.2 and recorded their statements.

PW.2 sent the sample for chemical analysis, and during his investigation, he received the analyst report and as per proceedings of Superintendent of

Police, the remaining property was destroyed and on completion of the investigation, laid a charge sheet.

3.The Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020.

APWG180000512022 3 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

4.The accused put in appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him and a charge under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, has been framed, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, to prove the complicity of the accused, examined

PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 marked.

7.The accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section

7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, as alleged by the

prosecution”?

P O I N T:

10.The accused has been charged on the allegation that he was found in possession of the property in question namely forty liters of ID liquor, in

APWG180000512022 4 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

violation of the provisions of section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, and have noticed the same, PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub

Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala PS, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with his team, and registered crime and sent the sample for chemical examination, and received report and on completion of investigation, filed a final report, and based on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

11.As could be seen from the testimony of PW.1(G.Chiranjeevi) Constable,

Dwaraka Tirumala PS, on 01.12.2021 at 10.00 AM, on credible information, he along with LW.1(M.Jaya Raju) Head Constable accompanied PW.2 and proceeded to outskirts of Dorasanipadu village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, found a person going on motorcycle, tried to escape on seeing them. Then they caught hold of him, and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars.

On further enquiry, he confessed that he purchased the ID liquor from unknown person from Jangareddygudem, for sale in open market at a higher price to gain profit. Then PW.2 verified the plastic tin and noticed 40 liters of

ID liquor. Later PW.2 arrested the accused, seized the ID arrack and motorcycle and drawn a sample bottle, prepared occurrence report and brought the accused along with the property and motorcycle to the Police

Station.

12.As could be seen from the testimony of PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub

Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, on 01.12.2021 at 10.00

AM, on credible information, he along with PW.1 and LW.1 (M.Jaya Raju)

APWG180000512022 5 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

Constable while conducting raids in order to detect excise offences proceeded to Dorasanipadu village, found a person with a tin on Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle bearing No.AP37CV 2902, tried to escape on seeing them. Then they caught hold of him and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity. Later in search, he found forty litres of ID liquor. When questioned, the accused confessed that he purchased the ID liquor from unknown persons of Jangareddygudem village, for sale in open market at a higher price, and then drafted a occurrence report.

He had drawn a sample bottle and affixed identity slips on it, obtained the signature of the accused covered by MO.1, and brought the accused along with the property to the Police Station. Based on Ex.P1, he registered a First

Information Report under Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, he examined PW.1 and LW.1 and their statements. He sent the accused for judicial remand. He sent the sample bottle to FSL for chemical analysis. On 21.01.2022 he received chemical analysis report under Ex.P3. As per the proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Eluru dated 18.03.2023, the remaining property in question was destroyed on 20.03.2023 under the cover of Ex.P4 mediator report, and on completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet.

13.Thus, it appears from the evidence referred to above that, PW.2 along with PW.1 and his team, was said to have reached the scene of the offence, to detect excise offences, whereof, they claimed to have found the accused in possession of property in question, and prepared Ex.P1 occurrence report, basing on his confession admitting the offence alleged.

APWG180000512022 6 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

14.It is the contention of the accused that, the place of offence is a residential locality, but despite the availability of several persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators, and failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C., and that, the investigating agency failed to examine any independent witness in support of its case and only for statistical purposes, to satisfy their superiors, the accused has been falsely implicated.

15.It is evident from the material on record that certain ID liquor was seized by PW.2 from the alleged possession of the accused, on the ground that he was selling the ID liquor for a higher price. Though PW.2 stated in his evidence that PW.2 tried to secure mediators, but nobody was available, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not issue any notice u/Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. to anyone to act as mediators. PW.2 further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy area surrounded by residential houses. He did not try to secure independent inhabitants of the locality to act as mediators at the scene of offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the place of offence is an isolated one, and far away from public view, for the reason of the admission of PW.2 that the scene of offence is a busy area surrounded by residential houses. PW.2 who registered the crime, ought to have examined either VRO or VRA of the place of offence to strengthen their case, but for the obvious reasons known to them, no such effort has been made by either of the Officers, despite of the availability of Government offices there, as admitted by PW.2, and thereby he has violated the mandatory provisions of

APWG180000512022 7 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

section 100(4) Cr.P.C. The said circumstance throws any amount of doubt concerning the alleged confession of the accused and seizure of the property in question. If the evidence of PW.2 that the accused confessed before him that he was selling the ID liquor for a higher price is true, he should have seized some amounts from the possession of the accused, but it is not the case of the prosecution. There is also no proof to show that the accused intends to sell the ID liquor in his possession to gain profit. Had PW.2 secured independent local inhabitants for acting as mediators, the case as was projected by the prosecuting party could have been appreciated, for the reason that, if any police officer wants to seize any articles from the possession of a suspected person, he must follow the procedure, as contemplated u/s.100(4) Cr. P.C., but such an exercise has not been made by the investigating team, and no material in the form of documentary evidence is let in to support his explanation to the effect that they tried to secure independent mediators, but none were available.

16.The occurrence report drafted by PW.2 is nothing but the confessional statement of the accused, and as such, it is hit by sections 25 & 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of STATE Vs. ARUN 1 . The same ratio has been laid down in the case of S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU VS.

1AIR 2003 SC 801

APWG180000512022 8 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2.

17.The Analyst report covered by Ex.P3 indicates that, the sample was sending on 06.01.2022, whereas, according to P.W.2, it was drawn on 01.12.2021. There appears delay of more than one month in sending the sample for chemical examination. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution about the delay in sending the sample bottle to the Analyst, and it is one of the important circumstances for doubting the case of the prosecution.

18.In the case at hand, except for the interested testimony of Police

Officials, no independent witnesses are examined, and the alleged confession of the accused is not based on a sound principle of law. These circumstances lead this court to record a finding of not guilty against the accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, which I do accordingly.

19.In the result, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence under section 7-B r/w 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 sample bottle, vide

CPR No.175/2026, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III , corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole.

22010 (1) ALT (CRL.) 32

APWG180000512022 9 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:- None

P.W.1- G.Chiranjeevi- Constable

P.W.2- T.Venkata Suresh-SI

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:Nil

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report

Ex.P.2: Original FIR

Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P.4: Attested copy of mediator report

MOS marked:

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Id/- SPN

CJ(JD)-CUM

JFCM, BDL.

APWG180000512022 10 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE .

PRESENT :: Smt. S PRIYADARSHINI NUTHAKKI

Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE.No.27/2022

(Crime.No.356/2021 of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station)

BETWEEN:

Sub-Inspector of Police Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. …Complainant

Vs

Gadhi Anjaneyulu, s/o Kota @ Kotaiah, 26 years, r/o Nidamarru village and Mandal. Now at Putlagatlagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. … Accused

Charges under section(s) : 7-B r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act, Date of occurrence: 01.12.2021 Date of report: 01.12.2021 Date of appearance: 01.12.2021 Date of commencement of trial: 11.02.2026 Date of closure of trial: 01.05.2026 Date of Judgment: 05.05.2026 Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Accused : Found not guilty

APWG180000512022 11 C.C.27/2022

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

Result of the Case : In the result, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence under section 7-B r/w 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 sample bottle, vide CPR No.175/2026, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 28.02.2022. On 26.09.2025, copies furnished to him. On 03.12.2025, accused examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C., a charge u/sec.7-B r/w 8-B of APP (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution,

PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1.

After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 01.05.2026, examination of the accused examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and heard arguments. On 05.05.2026 pronounced the Judgment.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru through CD.

APWG180004952022 1 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE .

PRESENT :: Smt. S PRIYADARSHINI NUTHAKKI

Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE.No.344/2022

(Crime.No.136/2022 of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station)

BETWEEN:

Sub-Inspector of Police Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. …Complainant

Vs

Ketha Lakshmi Perumallu, s/o Anjaneyulu, 48 years, r/o Mettagudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Smt.T.Sasi Kala, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.136/2022 for the offence under section 7-

B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020, registered by Sub

Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, with the following allegations:-

APWG180004952022 2 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

2.A brief resume of the case of the prosecution reads thus:-

That on 22.04.2022 at about 6.00 PM, on receipt of credible information,

PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police

Station, while conducting raids, along with PW.1(Md. Raj Ahmed) Head

Constable and LW.2(B.Badra Rao) Constable and after reaching at outskirts of Mettagudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, they noticed the accused in possession of a plastic tin in his hand. Thereafter, on suspicion, he tried to stop him, and upon seeing them, he attempted to escape. Then, they caught hold of him and inquired. When PW.2 verified the plastic tin, he found 6-litres of ID liquor. The accused has further confessed that he procured the same from an unknown person to sell it at a higher rate to eke out his livelihood.

Thereupon, PW.2 drew a sample for sending to chemical analysis, obtained the signature of the accused on it, and brought him to the police station for further enquiries. Thereafter, PW.2 registered a crime, arrested the accused, and sent him to judicial custody, prepared the occurrence report. During the course of investigation, PW.2 examined PW.1 and LW.2 and recorded their statements and handed over the case file to PW.3 (T.Sudheer), SI of Police for further enquiries. PW.3 took up further investigation, sent the sample for chemical analysis, and during his investigation, he received the analyst report and on completion of the investigation, laid a charge sheet.

3.The Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020.

4.The accused put in appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

APWG180004952022 3 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him and a charge under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, has been framed, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, to prove the complicity of the accused, examined

PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 marked.

7.The accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section

7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, as alleged by the

prosecution”?

P O I N T:

10.The accused has been charged on the allegation that he was found in possession of the property in question namely six liters of ID liquor, in violation of the provisions of section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, and have noticed the same, PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub Inspector of Police,

Dwaraka Tirumala PS, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with

APWG180004952022 4 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

his team, and registered crime and PW.3 sent the sample for chemical examination, and received report and on completion of investigation, filed a final report, and based on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

11.As could be seen from the testimony of PW.1(Mh.Raj Ahmed) Head

Constable, Dwaraka Tirumala PS, on 22.04.2022 at 6.00 PM, on credible information, he along with LW.2(B.Badra Rao) Constable and PW.2 went to

Mettagudem village, found a person in possession of 6 liters of ID arrack, tried to escape on seeing them. Then they caught hold of him, and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars. On further enquiry, he confessed that he purchased the same from unknown person from Yadavalli village. Later PW.2 arrested the accused, seized the ID arrack and drawn a sample bottle, prepared occurrence report and brought the accused along with the property to the Police Station.

12.As could be seen from the testimony of PW.2(T.Venkata Suresh) Sub

Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, on 22.04.2022 at 6.00

PM, on credible information, he along with PW.1 and LW.2 proceeded to

Mettagudem village outskirts, found a person, tried to escape on seeing them.

Then they caught hold of him and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity. Later in search, he found six litres of ID liquor. When questioned, the accused confessed that he prepares the ID liquor and sell the same for higher pries illegally since last two months, and then drafted a occurrence report. He had drawn a sample bottle and affixed identity slips on it, obtained the signature of

APWG180004952022 5 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

the accused covered by MO.1, and brought the accused along with the property to the Police Station. Based on the confession of the accused, he registered a First Information Report under Ex.P2. On the same day, he sent the accused for judicial remand. Later on the letter of advise, LW.4 forwarded the said sample bottle to Kakinada for chemical analysis. On 01.06.2020 he received chemical analysis report under Ex.P3. As per the proceedings of

Superintendent of Police, Eluru dated 06.07.2022, the remaining property in question was destroyed on 24.08.2022 under the cover of Ex.P4 mediator report

13.It is the evidence of PW.3(T.Sudheer) Sub Inspector of Police that he took up further investigation and after completing of investigation, laid a charge sheet.

14.Thus, it appears from the evidence referred to above that, PW.2 along with PW.1 and his team, was said to have reached the scene of the offence, to detect excise offences, whereof, they claimed to have found the accused in possession of property in question, and prepared Ex.P1 occurrence report, basing on his confession admitting the offence alleged.

15.It is the contention of the accused that, the place of offence is a residential locality, but despite the availability of several persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators, and failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C., and that, the investigating agency failed to examine any independent witness in support of its case and only for

APWG180004952022 6 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

statistical purposes, to satisfy their superiors, the accused has been falsely implicated.

16.It is evident from the material on record that certain ID liquor was seized by PW.2 from the alleged possession of the accused, on the ground that he was selling the ID liquor for a higher price. Though PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. It is not the case of the prosecution that the place of offence is an isolated one, and far away from public view, for the reason of the admission of PW.1 that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

PW.2 who registered the crime, ought to have examined either VRO or VRA of the place of offence to strengthen their case, but for the obvious reasons known to them, no such effort has been made by either of the Officers, despite of the availability of Government offices there, and thereby he has violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C. The said circumstance throws any amount of doubt concerning the alleged confession of the accused and seizure of the property in question. If the evidence of PW.2 that the accused confessed before him that he was selling the ID liquor for a higher price is true, he should have seized some amounts from the possession of the accused, but it is not the case of the prosecution. There is also no proof to show that the accused intends to sell the ID liquor in his possession to gain profit. Had PW.2 secured independent local inhabitants for acting as mediators, the case as was projected by the prosecuting party could have been appreciated, for the reason that, if any police officer wants to seize any articles from the possession of a suspected person, he must follow the procedure, as contemplated u/s.100(4) Cr. P.C., but such an exercise has not

APWG180004952022 7 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

been made by the investigating team, and no material in the form of documentary evidence is let in to support his explanation to the effect that they tried to secure independent mediators, but none were available.

17.The occurrence report drafted by PW.2 is nothing but the confessional statement of the accused, and as such, it is hit by sections 25 & 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of STATE Vs. ARUN 1 . The same ratio has been laid down in the case of S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU VS.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2.

18.The Analyst report covered by Ex.P3 indicates that, the sample was received on 25.05.2022, whereas, according to P.W.2, it was drawn on 22.04.2022. There appears delay of more than one month in sending the sample for chemical examination. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution about the delay in sending the sample bottle to the Analyst, and it is one of the important circumstances for doubting the case of the prosecution.

19.In the case at hand, except for the interested testimony of Police

Officials, no independent witnesses are examined, and the alleged confession 1AIR 2003 SC 801 22010 (1) ALT (CRL.) 32

APWG180004952022 8 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

of the accused is not based on a sound principle of law. These circumstances lead this court to record a finding of not guilty against the accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, which I do accordingly.

20.In the result, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence under section 7-B r/w 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 sample bottle, vide

CPR No.168/2026, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III , corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:- None

P.W.1- Md. Raj Ahmed-Head Constable

P.W.2- T.Venkata Suresh-SI

P.W.3- T.Sudheer-SI

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:Nil

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report

Ex.P.2: Original FIR

APWG180004952022 9 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P.4: Attested copy of mediator report

MOS marked:

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Id/- SPN

CJ(JD)-CUM

JFCM, BDL.

APWG180004952022 10 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE .

PRESENT :: Smt. S PRIYADARSHINI NUTHAKKI

Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE.No.344/2022

(Crime.No.136/2022 of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station)

BETWEEN:

Sub-Inspector of Police Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. …Complainant

Vs

Ketha Lakshmi Perumallu, s/o Anjaneyulu, 48 years, r/o Mettagudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. … Accused

Charges under section(s) : 7-B r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act, Date of occurrence: 22.04.2022 Date of report: 22.04.2022 Date of appearance: 23.04.2022 Date of commencement of trial: 06.10.2023 Date of closure of trial: 01.05.2026 Date of Judgment: 06.05.2026 Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Accused : Found not guilty

APWG180004952022 11 C.C.344/2022

Date 06.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

Result of the Case : In the result, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence under section 7-B r/w 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months under section 437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO.1 sample bottle, vide CPR No.168/2026, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 10.08.2022. On 17.11.2022, copies furnished to him. On 01.12.2022, accused examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C., a charge u/sec.7-B r/w 8-B of APP (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 01.05.2026, examination of the accused examined under section 313 of

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and heard arguments. On 06.05.2026 pronounced the

Judgment.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru through CD.

APWG180008752024 1 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE.

Present: Smt. S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

O.S.NO.181/2024

Between :

Smt. Devarakonda Nagamani, w/o Devarakonda Venkata Rama Rao, female, 46 years, r/o Sattennagudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru (WG) District. :: Plaintiff. And:

Smt. Kandula Durga, w/o late Srinu, female, r/o Ch. Pothepalli village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru (WG) District. :: Defendant.

This suit came before me on 02.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Allada Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her family members, followers, and henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful

APWG180008752024 2 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, with costs and other reliefs.

2.PLAINTIFF'S CASE, IN BRIEF:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which she obtained from her mother, Smt. Kandula Venkayamma, through a registered settlement deed bearing Doc.No.1281/2024 dated 03.02.2024 on the file of SRO, Chintalapudi. Since then, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes to the Government in the name of her mother, Kandula Venkayamma, as the title of the said property has not yet been transferred to her name.

2.1The defendant is the plaintiff’s sister-in-law and daughter-in-law of the said Venkayamma. She is attempting to occupy the said property with an evil intention over the plaint schedule property, with the help of her family members, followers, and henchmen, without having any right, title, or interest therein, by dispossessing the plaintiff from the property. The plaintiff has been restraining the defendant, her family members, followers, and henchmen with the assistance of local village elders whenever they attempted to occupy the property.

2.2Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 29.09.2024, calling upon her not to commit such illegal acts, failing which the plaintiff would be constrained to take appropriate legal action.

APWG180008752024 3 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

The defendant refused to receive the said notice, and the same was returned to the sender on 01.10.2024. Thereafter, the defendant intensified her illegal acts. On 30.10.2024, the defendant, along with her family members, followers, and henchmen, came to the plaint schedule property and attempted to trespass and occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff and her family members. The plaintiff and her inmates resisted them with great difficulty, with the assistance of local elders. The elders enquired into the matter and admonished the defendant and her associates not to enter the property without any right, title, or possession. However, they did not heed the advice and left the place proclaiming that they would occupy the property at any time by dispossessing the plaintiff and her family members. On the advice of the village elders, the plaintiff approached the SHO, Dwaraka Tirumala Police

Station, but the police advised her to seek remedy before a civil court, stating that the matter is civil in nature.

2.3The plaintiff is unable to prevent the illegal acts of the defendant and her associates, as they are openly proclaiming in the village that they will dispossess her. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.

3.After service of summons, the defendant initially appeared before the

Court but failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time.

Consequently, her right to file a written statement was forfeited.

APWG180008752024 4 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

4.In support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction

as prayed for?

7.FINDING:

In support of her case, the plaintiff filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating the plaint averments and examined herself as

PW.1. She marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the registered settlement deed bearing Doc.No.1281/2024 dated 03.02.2024 executed by Kandula

Venkayamma (mother of the plaintiff) in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 29.09.2024 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is the returned postal cover with endorsement “refused,” along with acknowledgment dated 01.10.2024.

7.1On scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it is evident that the plaintiff has right over the suit schedule property and that, on the date mentioned, the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession without any manner of right. As stated supra, the defendant’s right to file a written statement was forfeited, and as she did not appear before the Court

APWG180008752024 5 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

when the matter was taken up for cross-examination of PW.1, she was set ex parte on 02.04.2026.

7.2There are no contrary pleadings or evidence to rebut the testimony of

PW.1. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged and establishes that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendant attempted to interfere with such possession without any lawful right.

Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff deserves to be protected by granting the equitable relief of injunction. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in her favour.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant, her family members, followers, and henchmen from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

APWG180008752024 6 O.S.181/2024

Date 05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: None

PW.1: Devarakonda Nagamani

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/03.02.2024.Registeredsettlementdeedbearing Doc.No.1281/2024 executed by one Kandula Venkayamma (mother of the plaintiff) in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2/29.09.2024: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3/01.10.2024: Refused unserved returned cover from the defendant along with acknowledgment.

For Defendant: NIL

Id/- SPN

CJ(JD)-CUM-

JFCM, BDL.

APWG180002002024 1 OS.43/2024 Dt.05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: BHIMADOLE.

Present: Smt. S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.43/2024

Between :

Jasti Chandra Sekhar, s/o Lakshmana Rao, Male, 39 years, Private employee, r/o Satyanarayanapuram village, h/o Denduluru village and Mandal, West Godavari District. :: Plaintiff And:

Smt. Manchala Lakshmi Kumari, w/o Srinivasa Rao, Female, 45 years, Housewife, r/o D.No.98/382/11-12-7C-1/4, opposite to Rythu Bazar, Tangappa street, Chenchupeta, Tenali, Gunturu District. :: Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 01.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of parties and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF MEDIATION REPORT

1.The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.10,23,600/- (Rupees ten lakhs twenty-three thousand six hundred only) from the defendant, together with subsequent interest and costs.

APWG180002002024 2 OS.43/2024 Dt.05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.03.2021 for family expenses and to discharge sundry debts. In consideration of the said loan, the defendant executed a promissory note

dated 20.03.2021 in favour of the plaintiff, undertaking to repay the amount on

demand. Despite repeated demands, the defendant allegedly failed to pay even a single rupee. On 13.02.2023, the plaintiff caused a registered legal notice to be issued to the defendant, demanding discharge of the debt due under the promissory note. The defendant received the said notice on 14.02.2023 but failed to comply with the demand, which constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit.

3.The defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed a written statement specifically denying the allegations. She contended that she has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and has never seen him, either directly or through others; hence, the question of borrowing any amount, executing the alleged promissory note, or issuing any cheque does not arise.

3.1The defendant further stated that her husband, by name Manchala

Srinivasa Rao, along with his friend Anche Venkatrao of Tenali, carried on real estate business during his lifetime. In the course of such business, the cheque book of the defendant was in the possession of her husband and his friend

Anche Venkatrao. It is alleged that the said Anche Venkatrao cheated the defendant’s husband in their real estate business and took the alleged promissory note, cheque, and some other cheques from him while he was

APWG180002002024 3 OS.43/2024 Dt.05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

alive. By using those cheques, the said Anche Venkatrao allegedly filed false cases at Tenali in the name of his wife, which are pending.

3.2It is further contended that after the death of the defendant’s husband, and upon coming to know that the defendant owns immovable properties, the said Anche Venkatrao, in collusion with the plaintiff, filed the present suit with false allegations to grab the same. The defendant asserted that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, did not execute any promissory note, and did not issue the cheque in question. She further alleged that the plaintiff, along with the attestors, scribe, and associates, colluded with the said Anche

Venkatrao and fabricated the promissory note. The defendant stated that she owns immovable properties and has sufficient income, and therefore had no necessity to borrow any amount. She prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

4.On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 19.07.2025:

a) Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.03.2021 for

Rs.6,00,000/- is true, valid, and binding on the defendant?

b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

c) To what relief?

5.During the pendency of the suit, both parties, along with their respective counsel, expressed willingness to explore settlement through mediation.

Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Bhimadole.

APWG180002002024 4 OS.43/2024 Dt.05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

6.The mediation was successful. The learned Mediator submitted a

Mediation Settlement Report dated 01.05.2026, duly signed by both parties, their advocates, and the Mediator. The settlement terms are as follows:

a) Both parties have settled both cases, i.e., the present suit and S.T.C.

No.18/2023, for a total amount of Rs.11,00,000/-.

b) The defendant has agreed to pay the above settlement amount to the plaintiff on 07.05.2026, and the plaintiff has agreed to receive the same and withdraw the present suit and S.T.C. No.18/2023.

7.The parties and their respective counsel are present before the Court today. They have been identified by their advocates and have affirmed the terms of the settlement. They have also stated that the compromise was entered into voluntarily, without coercion, undue influence, or fraud, and have prayed that the suit be decreed in terms of the settlement.

8.I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the

Mediation Settlement Report. The terms of settlement appear lawful, voluntary, and in consonance with public policy. The compromise is therefore accepted.

9.Consequently, the settlement arrived at between the parties is recorded and accepted by this Court. In view of the settlement, the suit stands disposed of under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The terms of the settlement shall form part of this decree.

APWG180002002024 5 OS.43/2024 Dt.05.05.2026

CJ(JD)-CUM-JFCM, BDL.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise under Order

XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs only) on or before 07.05.2026 in full and final settlement of the present suit as well as S.T.C.

No.18/2023. On such payment, the plaintiff shall treat the claim as fully satisfied and shall not initiate any further proceedings against the defendant in respect of the subject matter of the suit.

In default of payment as stipulated above, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute this decree in accordance with law. The compromise terms shall form part of this decree. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Id/- SPN

CJ(JD)-CUM-

JFCM, BDL.

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: BHIMADOLE.

Present: Smt. S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole.

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026

E.P.18/2022 in O.S.158/2019

Between :

Busanaboyina Krishna Murthy, s/o Subbayya, 65 years, properties, r/o M.Nagulapalli village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. :: Petitioner / DHR And:

Chundru Gangadhara Rao, s/o Rama Rao, Hindu, Male, 45 years, Cultivation, r/o Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. :: Respondent/ JDR.

This EP is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.S.V.Bhaskaram, Advocate for the petitioner/DHR and Sri K.Ganga Raju, Advocate for respondent/JDR and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

D.Hr. called present. Learned counsel for D.Hr. filed full satisfaction memo. FS recorded. EP is terminated.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side. Id/- SPN

CJ(JD)-CUM-

JMFC, BHIMADOLE.