S Priyanka

1 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARAYANKHED

PRESENT

Ms. Priyanka Sircilla

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed.

SATURDAY, DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

C.C. 84 OF 2018

Between:-

The State of Telangana through., P.S. Nagalgidda.

….Complainant

A N D

A1:Vadla Vishnu S/o Vittal, Aged: 21 years, Occ:Auto Driver.

A2:Vadla Sriknath S/o Vittal, Aged: 20 years, Occ: Student inter 2nd years

A3:Vadla Kalappa S/o Brammaiah, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.

A4:Vadla Naresh S/o Kalappa, Aged: 24 years, Occ: Carpenter.

A5:Vadla Raju S/o Kalappa, Aged: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture.

A6:Vadla Pandari S/o Kalappa, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Vidya valountery at UPS Damargidda.

All are Valda by caste R/o Muktapur village, Nagalgidida Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 6 2 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P. Laxman Rao, Advocate for Accused persons upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Nagalgidda, against A1 to A6 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149 of Indian Penal code for short herein referred to as IPC.

2. The allegations in brief leveled against all the Accused persons in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 02.08.2017 at 0900 hours the complainant Namely

Lw1/Kalgonda Kashamma, came to PS Nagalgidda and lodged a complaint in which she stated that they have previous enmity with their villager Vadla Vittal family by the allegation of that LW1’s husband have illegal affair with Vittal’s wife Radhamma keeping that grudges in the mind on 01.08.2017 at about 10.00 pm A1 to A6 have formed into unlawful assembly with a preparation to attack on Lw1’s husband/Lw2 with sticks, they criminally trespassed into her house, dragged out the

LW1 and Lw2 from the house. A1 to A6 bet them with sticks indiscriminately over the legs, back, and other parts of the body and caused bleeding injuries and warned of dire consequences of killing 3 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 him, if he did not change his attitude. This incident was witnessed by

LW3 and LW4 they rescued the LW1 and LW2 from the clutches of the accused persons. Thus she requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

3.Basing on the complaint LW.10/L. Sandeep, Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No. 08 of 2017 for the offence under sections 147,148,452,324,506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2 and sent them to Government Hospital

Narayankhed for treatment. Immediately LW10 along with staff rushed to the scene of offence situated at Muktapur village and secured the presence of panchas i.e.,LW5 and LW6 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized three sticks from the scene and drew rough sketch. During the panchanama examined and recorded their statements of LW3 and LW4. From there LW10 along with staff proceeded to the house of the accused situated in the same village to serve the notice U/sec. 41(a) Cr. P.C but on seeing the police A1 to A6 are tried to escape from the view of police, A1 to A6 have taken into custody at 10.40 hours and interrogated thoroughly. On interrogation the accused persons have admitted their guilt of offence, among them 4 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018

A1 is ready to confess to the offence, and immediately secured the presence of panchas i.e.,Lw7 and LW8 recorded the confession statement of A1, during the confession panchanam the LW10 got seized one stick from the possession of the A1 under cover of panchanama and completion of confession cum seizure panchanama

LW10 brought A1 to A6 to P.S effected their arrest by issuing arrest memos at 12.00 hours and served the notice U/sec 41(A) with an instruction to cooperative with investigation agency. The LW9/M.

Vishnu, the Medical officer who treated the injured persons was issued

Medical certificates in which he opined that the injuries of LW1 and LW2 are “Simple in nature”. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.The cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC by this court and numbered as

C.C.No.84/2018. The summons were served on A1 to A6 and they appeared before this court. Subsequently, Accused persons were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later, a charge for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149

IPC was framed, read over and explained to Accused persons for which 5 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of all the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P9. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW-5 and LW7.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, all the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appeared against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Assistant Public prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused and perused the record.

8. Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii)

r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:- The simple case of the prosecution is that A1 to A6 criminally trespassed into the house of defacto complainant and bet her and LW1 with sticks indiscriminately over the legs and further warned with dire consequences of killing him if he did not change his attitude.

Hence, A1 to A6 are liable for the offence under sections 147, 148, 452, 6 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC.

10.PW1 deposed that at about 2 years ago, one day when she was in her house at about 10.00 pm all the accused came to her house and beat her and LW1 by alleging that her husband/LW2 was having an illegal relationship with their mother of A1 and A2. A3 and A5 kicked with their legs on her chest and A5 bet her on her right-hand shoulder with a stick. Then after all the accused dragged LW2 on the road and bet him and as such he received injuries. LW3 and LW4 witnessed the incident and rescued them from the clutches of the accused persons.

Then after they went to the police station where she lodged Ex. P1 report. Police examined and recorded her statement.

During the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that SI of police scribed Ex. P1 on her dictation. She denied that she does not know the contents of Ex. P1. There is 4 km distance from her house to the police station, and conveyance available from her village to the police station.

He denied that accused never bet them and she is deposing falsely by keeping the previous enmities. She admitted that they have previous enmities with the accused persons. The incident lasted for half an hour and there were 30 members gathered at the time of incident. She was not admitted in hospital. She sustained 4 to 5 injuries on her body. On the same day of incident they were referred to the hospital. She stated 7 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 as in her chief affidavit in 161 Cr. P.C statement also. She denied that the accused persons never committed any offence and she is deposing falsely due to previous enmity.

11.PW2 deposed that at about 2 years ago on one day when he was in his house at about 10.00 pm all the accused came to his house and bet him and PW1 by alleging that he never illegal relationship with the mother of A1 and A2. Then after all the accused dragged him onto the road and bet him with a stick as such he received injuries on his back and his left leg on his right leg, he also received injuries on his body as they were dragged him. Then after they went to the police station where

PW1 lodged Ex. P1 report. Police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he has no illegal relationship with the mother of A1 and A2. He denied that accused never bet him by alleging that he has an illegal relationship with the mother of A1 and A2. The incident lasted for one hour and 40 to 50 members gathered at the scene of offence. They went to P.S on the same day and lodged a complaint. His statement was recorded on the next day but not on the same day. He denied that he has no previous enmities with the accused. He denied that never bet him and 8 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018

PW1, he is deposing falsely by keeping previous enmities against them.

He took treatment for 6 days. He denied that the accused persons never committed any offence and she is deposing falsely by keeping previous enmities.

12.PW3 deposed that at about 2 years ago, all the accused bet

PW2, and he rescued PW2 from the hands of the accused. All the accused dragged the PW2 from his house and bet him. Police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross-examination, PW3 deposed that PW2 is his brother, he stated the same as in his chief examination before the police. He does not know whether there was any previous enmity between the PW2 and the accused. He does not know about the illegal relationship of the wife of A1 with PW2. He denied that he does not know anything about this case, accused of never bet PW2, and deposing falsely as he is his brother.

13.PW4 deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he never witnessed any incident that police never examined and not recorded his statement. In view of the hostile attitude of PW4 the learned APPO declared him as a hostile witnesses and cross-examined with the permission of the court but nothing was elicited from the PW4 9 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 in favour of prosecution.

14.PW5 deposed that in the year 2017 in his village some quarrel took place and the police came to the house of PW2 and in front of his house police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch, he along with LW5 were present, and attested the panchanama and rough sketch.

During the cross-examination, PW5 deposed that PW1 and PW2 are his agnates. He went to the scene offence Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 was prepared by police. He denied that he does not know the facts of the present case and he did not sign on Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 at the scene and as the PW1 and PW2 are his agnates he signed on Ex.P3 and Ex. P4 and he does not know the contents of same and he is deposing false.

15.PW6 deposed that he knows who are standing in the accused box because they are his villagers, he does not know anything about this case. Police neither examined him and nor recorded his statement.

Lw7 has died. He does not know why police obtained his thumb impression on the blank papers for what purpose. In view of hostile attitude of PW6 the learned APPO declared him as a hostile witness and cross-examined with the permission of the court but nothing was 10 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 elicited from the PW6 in favour of the prosecution.

16.PW7 who is the medical officer and deposed the injured name

Kalagonda Kashamma W/o Saigonda. He found the following injuries victim/PW1 came to the hospital by self-requisition on 01.08.2017 at 8.30 pm her identification of marks are a mole on the jaw. Swelling is over the left upper arm i.e., middle 1/3 humorous region 5x3 cm.

Swelling is present over the parietal occipital region and 3x2 cm, Nature of the injury is simple. Ex. P5 is marked.

PW2. K Saigonda s/o Beergonda, found the following injuries victim came to the hospital by self-requisition on 01.08.2017 at 8.30 pm, it is alleged to have beaten by a known person he reported that the said incident happened to him at 9.30 pm, Aberration over the left thigh middle 8x5 cm. Aberration over the left leg middle 3x2 cms. Aberration over the left side of the trauma at the level of T-12 to l-12 vertical bro 7x2 cms. The nature of injury is simple. Ex. P6 is marked.

17.PW8, the investigating Officer and he deposed that on 02.08.2017 he received a complaint from PW1, thereafter he registered a FIR vide Cr. No. 08/2017 U/sec.147,148,452,324,506 (ii) r/w 149 of

IPC. He recorded the statements of the PW1 and PW2 at the police 11 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 station, immediately send the PW1 and PW2 to the hospital for taking treatment. Thereafter, he rushed to the scene of offence on the same day, and he examined and recorded the statements of PW3 and PW4.

On the next day of the incident, he drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence before the Lw5 and PW5. On the day of offence A1 to A6 were sent to the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. After the collection of the relevant documents from the PW7, he filed the charge sheet before the court.

During his cross-examination, PW8 admitted that there was 24 hrs delay in lodging the complaint. He did not explain the reason for the delay, there is 3 Kms distance from the village of Muktapur to the Police station. One person can reach within 30 mins. from the place of offence.

No complaint was filed against the incident of attack on PW2 by A5. He admitted that no one disclosed this incident in their Sec.161 Cr.P.c statements. Pw1 to 3 are belongs to the same family. And Pw4 is the only person who is an independent witness. He did not enquire about the illegal intimacy of the mother of A1 with PW2. He denied that there was no illegal intimacy with Accused No. 1’s mother and Pw2. He doesn’t know whether any rivalries are existing in between the accused persons and the Pw1 family. He did not conduct the scene of panchanama and recovery panchanama, He did not visit the place of 12 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 offence, and he did not record the statements of the LWs. He admitted that the property seized it can be available anywhere. He denied that he conducted the table investigation and he filed a false case against the accused persons, they are innocent persons.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are family members. As per the evidence of PW1 to PW3, A1 to A6 bet PW1 and

PW2, for the reason to an illegal relationship with the mother of A1 and

A2. Pw1 and Pw2 were admitted that they have previous enemity between the accused family and his family. PW1 and PW2 deposed that all the accused beat him with sticks. PW4 and PW6 turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution. PW5 panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama denied that he do not know the facts of the present case and did not sign on Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 at the scene and he does not know the contents of this case. But deposed that there was a dispute took place whereas he does not deposed before the court regarding the dispute. Pw7/Doctor who treated PW1 and PW2 and issued Ex. P5 and P6. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention the age of injuries and colour of injuries in Ex.P6 and

Ex. P7, he could not able to say whether the injury is either fresh or old.

Pw1 and 2 deposed that the incident happened at 10 pm but the doctor 13 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 deposed that the Pw1 and PW2 came to hospital at 8 pm on the same date of incident. Pw2 deposed he took treatment for 6 days but the Pw7 deposed that she treated them as out patients only.

19.It is important to mention here that as per PW1 and PW2 the accused person's used sticks in the incident but PW7/Investigation officer admitted that the property seized by him can available anywhere.

PW3 is an eyewitness to the incident but he did not deposed the all the accused sticks. But he does not know the previous enmity between the accused family and the PW1 and Pw2. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-5 and LW7. Pw8 does not know whether there is any previous enmity between the accused and the complainant family.

There is a one day delay for the lodging of the complaint but Pw8 did not explain for the reason for delay. The accused persons cannot be convicted and the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict all the accused persons for which they were charged.

20. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 147, 14 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A6 stands canceled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Kashamma- NIL - PW2 K. Sailugonda PW3 K. Eashwargonda PW4 S. Laxman PW5 K. Pundalik PW6 S. Sara Srinu PW7 Dr. M. Vishnu PW8 L. Sandeep

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 Complaint 15 Of 15 CC. No. 84 of 2018

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P.3 Scene of offence and recovery panchanama Ex.P.4 Rough sketch Ex.P.5 Medical report /Pw1 Ex.P.6 Medical report /PW2 Ex.P.7 FIR Ex.P.8 Scene cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P.9 Property form

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed.

Page No.1 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED

Present :Ms. Priyanka Sircilla,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Narayankhed.

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023

C.C. No : 237 of 2022

Between:- The state of Telangana through Excise PS Narayankhed.

...Complainant.

And

Uppalkar Anajaiah S/o Narsanna, Aged: 61 years, Caste: BC, Occ: Barber, R/o H.No. 6-162/2, Sirgapur village and Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri S. Sailoo, counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material available on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of C.O.R.No.18/2021 of Prohibition and

Excise of PS Narayankhed registered against Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Prohibition

Act 1995.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- on 23.02.2021 LW3 received credible information about illegal possession and selling of I.D

Page No.2 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

Liquor in the hair cutting shop of accused situated Sirgapur village and

Mandal. LW-3 along with staff secured the presence of LW1 and LW-2 and conducted raid on the shop of accused at 04.30 pm and they found that on seeing the excise officials accused came out from the shop and started running. The excise officials tried to apprehended him, but he managed to escape. On enquiry with local people they came to know that the accused selling I.D liquor in the village at his shop. After knocking the door of the shop of accused by the excise officials no inmates came out from the house. LW3 recorded the search memo and pasted the same on the door of the accused and entered into the shop of accused along with LW1 and LW2 and they started searching. During their search they found 1. One white colour plastic bottle containing (02) litre of ID liquor in the shop of accused. On opening the lids of the plastic bottle after smelling confirmed the same as ID liquor. LW3 informed to Lw1 and LW2 that the possession and selling of ID liquor is an offence under T.S Prohibition Act 1995. LW3 drawn one sample containing (180) ml of ID liquor, duly following the procedure and sealed the two sample bottles and seized remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2.

3.LW6 registered a case in C.O.R.No.18 of 2021 against the accused for the offence U/sc 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Prohibition

Act 1995 and took up the investigation. The samples were deposited

Page No.3 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

before this court with a requisition to send one sample for analysis of

chemical examiner, the Government Chemical examiner after examination the samples, issued CE report No. 202/2021-02,

dt:26.03.2021 and opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit

for human consumption and cause injurious to health. LW6 issued

U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C notice on accused. The remaining contraband was deposited before the Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and excise, Sangareddy for confiscation. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence U/sec 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Prohibition

Act 1995.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and the

Accused denied the accusation. A charge U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Excise Prohibition Act 1995. has been framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No.4 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

6.During trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-7. To prove the case of the Prosecution examined LW-1/V. Naveen Reddy, L.w.2/B. Kistaiah as PW1 and PW2 respectively. LW-3/ R. Ravi/Investigating Officer as PW-3.

7.The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 signatures and

Panchanama Ex.P3 is C.O.R, Ex.P4 is CE report, Ex.P5 is panchanama report ,Ex.P6 is search memo and Ex. P7 seized property detailed form.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

10.Perused the record.

11.Now the point germane for my determinationis:

‘Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable U/s.s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Excise Prohibition Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

Page No.5 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

P O I N T:

12.It is the case of prosecution on reliable information that the accused illegally selling of ID liquor in his heir cutting shop, situated at

Sirgapur village and Mandal, immediately LW-3 along with LW1 and

LW-2 rushed to the shop of accused wherein conducted scene and seizure panchanama, seized this case property from the spot, drawn sample and seized under cover of Ex.P5, registered the case, send the sample for analysis.

13.To prove the seizure of I.D liquor from the shop of accused, the prosecution has examined the independent mediators as PW-1 and

PW-2, however the evidence of both witnesses is hostile one, inspite of cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, with the permission of the court by the learned APPO nothing came on record to help the prosecution case, thus the evidence of PW1 and PW-2 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case.

14.Therefore there remains the sole testimony of PW-3 who is investigating officer who testified that in the presence of PW-1 and PW- 2 drawn the sample seized the I.D liquor under the seizure panchanama. It is already stated supra, both the mediators i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have not only denied the case of prosecution but also

Page No.6 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022 testified that the concerned excise police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Except identifying of their signatures, the PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of both mediators is contradicting the evidence of PW-3 in respect of search and seizure of Liquor from the scene of offence.

15.The learned APPO submitted that sole testimony of PW-3 is sufficient for conviction. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that PW-3 is an interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon without corroboration with the evidence of independent witness. However, the evidence of PW-3 cannot be thrown away on the ground that he is an interested witness, but his evidence can be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court. In the present case on hand, it is the evidence of Investigation officer that on reliable information about the illegal sale of I.D liquor by accused in his shop, he along with his staff rushed to the house of the accused person and seized the contraband.

16.The samples sent to the chemical examiner on 16.03.2021 by the

Excise officials, the chemical examiner opined that it is alcohol and

Indian made I.D liquor and which is marked as Ex.P4. The prosecution could not able to explain the delay of 12 days in sending the samples to

Page No.7 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022 the chemical examiner and where the sample was kept from 16.03.2021 to 26.02.2021 is also not explained by the prosecution. The sole ground of delay in sending the sample to chemical examiner is sufficient to say that the accused is entitled for acquittal, as it raised reasonable doubt about the genuineness of seizure of liquor from the shop of the accused person.

17.It is admitted by the PW-3 that he did not mention serial number and batch number of seized property, at the time of raid no search memo was issued to the accused and did not file any documentary proof to show that alleged shop belongs to accused, PW1 and PW2 are belongs to the same village even then they did not give evidence against the accused.

18.The above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and also no reason was explained for the delay of (12) days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner, from the uncorroborated sole testimony of investigating officer and non examination of any of the persons in the said village to prove that the accused was selling the I.D liquor as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

Page No.8 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Prohibition Act 1995 and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of March, 2023.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: N. Venkaiah/Panch witness None PW2: Karanji Pandari/Panch witness PW3: R. Ravi/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of )

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2: is Signatures on the panchanama Nil Ex.P3 is C.O.R Ex.P4 is CE report Ex.P5 is panchanama report Ex.P6 is search memo Ex. P7 seized property detailed form

Material Objects Marked

For PROSECUTION: NIL

Page No.9 to 8 CC No. 237 of 2022

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.1 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED

Present :Ms. Priyanka Sircilla,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Narayankhed.

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023

C.C. No : 636 of 2022

Between:- The state of Telangana through Excise PS Narayankhed.

...Complainant.

And

Sangem Ramagoud S/o Balagoud, Aged: 50 years, Caste: B.C, Occ: Toddy Seller, R/o Gardegoan village of Sirgapur Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B. Sangameswar Reddy, counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material available on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of C.O.R.No.78/2022 of Prohibition and

Excise of PS Narayankhed registered against Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act 1995.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- on 24.06.2022 Lw3 received credible information about illegal selling of toddy in teen shed of accused, LW-3 along with staff secured the presence of LW1 and

Page No.2 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

LW-2 and conducted raid on the illegal toddy in teen shed at Gardegaon village of Sirgapur Mandal at about 09.30 am and they found that on seeing the excise officials accused came out from the teen shed. LW3 issued search memo in the presence of LW1 and LW2, on enquiry they came to know that, he was illegally possession and selling of the toddy without any valid permit or licence. On physical verification they found

1. (10) plastic crates each crate containing (12) bottles each bottle containing (650) ml of toddy total (78) litres of toddy, verified for the license or permit no such documents were found in the premise. LW3 informed to Lws1 and 2 that the illegal possession and selling of the toddy without valid permit or license is an offence under the Excise Act.

Then LW3 took toddy bottles at randomly from the crate and poured the same into a clean plastic bucket and mixed well as per the procedure prescribed, chemical by heating the test tube, it indicates that the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. However on LW3 drawn two sample bottles of toddy each sample bottle containing about (350) ml, of toddy approximately duly following the procedure in the presence of

Lws 1 and 2 and seized the two sample bottles and destroyed the entire toddy on the spot under cover of panchanama.

3.LW.3 registered a case against the accused in COR. No.78/2022, for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and took up the investigation. The samples were deposited before this Court with a

Page No.3 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022 requisition to send one sample for analysis of chemical examiner, The

Government Chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued

CE report No. 521/2022, dt:30.06.2022 in Sl. No. 2920 and opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam.

Then after he issued notice U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C to accused. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) T.S Excise Act. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

5.The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and he denied the accusation. charge under Section 34(a) T.S Excise Act. has been framed against her, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. To prove its case, the Prosecution examined

LW-1/Gaini Pentaiah, L.W2/K. Krishna Rao as Pws.1 & 2 respectively.

Lw3. R. Ravi/Investigating Officer as PW-3.

7.The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 and P2 signatures on

Panchanama, Ex.P3 is C.O.R, Ex.P4 is Panchanama report, Ex.P5 is

Page No.4 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022 chemical examination report, Ex. P6 is List of Property, Ex. P7 is search memo.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

10.Perused the record.

11.Now the point germane for my determinationis:

‘Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) T.S

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

12. P O I N T: It is the case of prosecution on reliable information that accused in his teen shed, situated at Gardegaon village of Sirgapur

Mandal was selling toddy, immediately LW-3 along with LW1 and LW-2 rushed to the teen shed of accused wherein conducted scene and seizure panchanama, seized this case property from the spot, drawn sample and seized under cover of Ex.P5, registered the case, send the sample for analysis and filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

Page No.5 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

13.To prove the seizure of toddy from the shop of accused, the prosecution has examined the independent mediators as PW-1 and

PW-2, however the evidence of both witnesses is hostile one, inspite of cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, with the permission of the court by the learned APPO nothing came on record to help the prosecution case, thus the evidence of PW1 and PW-2 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case.

14.Therefore there remains the sole testimony of PW-3 who is investigating officer who testified that in the presence of PW-1 and PW- 2 drawn the samples and seized the toddy under the seizure panchanama. It is already stated supra, both the mediators i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have not only denied the case of prosecution but also testified that the concerned excise police officials obtained PW1 and

PW2 signatures on some blank papers. Except identifying of their signatures, the PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of both mediators is contradicting the evidence of PW-3 in respect of search and seizure of toddy from the scene of offence.

Page No.6 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

15.The learned APPO submitted that sole testimony of PW-3 is sufficient to convict. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that PW-3 is an interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon without corroboration with the evidence of independent witnesses. However, the evidence of PW-3 cannot be thrown away on the ground that he is an interested witness, but his evidence can be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court. In the present case on hand, it is the evidence of Investigation officer that on reliable information about the illegal sale of toddy by accused in his Teen shed, he along with his staff rushed to the teen shed of the accused person and seized the contraband.

16.The contraband sent to the chemical examiner on 30.06.2022 by the Excise officials, the chemical examiner opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from chloral hydrate and diazepam and which is marked as Ex.P5. The prosecution could not able to explain the delay of (5) days in sending the samples to the chemical examiner and where the samples were kept from 30.06.2022 to 04.07.2022 is also not explained by the prosecution. The sole ground of delay in sending the sample to chemical examiner is sufficient to say that the accused is entitled for acquittal, as it raised reasonable doubt about the genuineness of seizure of toddy from the shop of the accused person.

Page No.7 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

17.It is admitted by the PW-3 that he did not mention serial number and batch number of seized property, at the time of raid no search memo was issued to the accused and did not file any documentary proof to show that alleged shop belongs to accused.

18.The above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and also no reason was explained for the delay of (5) days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner, from the uncorroborated sole testimony of investigating officer and after examination of the persons in the said village to prove that the accused was selling the toddy as alleged by the prosecution it is not proved. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 34 (a) T.S Excise Act and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2023.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.8 to 8 CC No. 636 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Gaini Pentaiah/Panch witness None PW2: L. Krishna Rao/Panch witness PW3: R. Ravie/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of )

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on panchanama Nil Ex.P2 is Signature of PW2 on panchanama Ex.P3 is C.O.R Ex.P4 is Panchanama report Ex.P5 is chemical examination report Ex.P6 is List of Property Ex.P7 is search memo

Material Objects Marked

For PROSECUTION: NIL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.1 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED

Present :Ms. Priyanka Sircilla,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Narayankhed.

Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022

C.C. No : 588 of 2021

Between:- The state of Telangana through Excise PS Narayankhed.

...Complainant.

And

Thadamkanti Parva Goud S/o Rama Goud, Aged: 65 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Toddy Seller, R/o Nizampet village, Narayankhed Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri. Sangameshwar Reddy counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material avaialble on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of C.O.R.No.129/2020 of Prohibition and Excise of

PS Narayankhed registered against Accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 34(a) of T.S Excise Prohibition Act 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- on 04-12-2020 on credible information about illegal selling of toddy in the toddy shop of accused situated at

Nizampet to Kothapally road of Narayankhed Mandal, LW-3 along with staff secured the presence of LW1 and LW-2 and conducted raid on the toddy shop of accused at 04.35 pm and they found that on seeing the excise officials, accused came out from the toddy shop and started running. The excise officials tried to apprehended him, but he managed to escape. On enquiry with local people they came to know that the accused selling toddy illegally in his toddy shop. After

Page No.2 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

observation of the excise officials by the accused he ran away from his shop LW3 taken over the custody of the accused. After that he entered into the shop along with LW1 and LW2 and they started searching. During their search they found (62) plastic creates, each crate containing (12) bottles each bottle containing (650) ml of toddy without any valid permit or licence. It is an offence under excise act, toddy drawn two sample bottles of toddy each sample containing about (350) ml, of toddy the procedure and sealed the two sample bottles and seized remaining contraband under cover of panchanama. Later, LW3 sue-moto registered a case in

C.O.R.No.129 of 2020 against the accused for the offence U/sec 34(a) of T.S.

Excise Prohibition Act 1968 and took up the investigation. During the investigation, Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice was served on accused and after completion of investigation, receipt of CE report, the Excise Sub Inspector of

Police filed charge sheet.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and the Accused denied the accusation. A charge U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968. has been framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2, Exhibits are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4. To prove the case of the Prosecution examined LW-1

Anjamolla Hanma Goud as PW.1 respectively. LW-2/ R. Ravi/Investigating

Officer as PW-2.

Page No.3 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

7.The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 signatures, of the PW1 Ex.P2 is C.O.R,

Ex.P3 is CE report, Ex.P4 is panchanama

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

10.Perused the record.

11.Now the point germane for my determinationis:

‘Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt’ ?

P O I N T:

12.It is the case of prosecution on reliable information that accused running a business of illegal selling toddy in his house situated at Nizampet village of

Narayankhed Mandal, immediately LW-3 along with LW1 and LW-2 rushed to the toddy shop of accused wherein conducted scene and seizure panchanama, seized this case property from the spot, drawn sample and seized under cover of

Ex.P2, registered the case, send the sample for analysis and filed charge sheet.

13.To prove the seizure of toddy from the toddy shop of accused, the prosecution has examined the independent mediators as PW-1, however the evidence of both witnesses is hostile one, inspite of cross-examination of PW-1, nothing came on record to help the prosecution case, thus the evidence of PW1 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case.

Page No.4 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

14.Therefore there remains the sole testimony of PW-2 who is investigating officer who testified that he in the presence of PW-1 after drawing the samples he seized the toddy under the seizure panchanama. It is already stated supra, the mediator i.e. PW-1 have not only denied the case of prosecution but also testified that the concerned excise police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Except identifying of his signature, the PW-1 have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of mediator is contradicting the evidence of PW-2 in respect of search and seizure of toddy from the scene of offence.

15.The learned APPO submitted that sole testimony of PW-2 is sufficient to give conviction. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that

PW-2 is an interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon without corroboration with the evidence of independent witness. However, the evidence of PW-2 cannot be thrown away on the ground that he is an interested witness, but his evidence can be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court. In the present case on hand, it is the evidence of Investigation officer that on reliable information about the illegal sale of Toddy by accused in his toddy shop, he along with his staff rushed to the toddy shop of the accused person and seized the contraband.

16.The contraband sent to the chemical examiner on 04-12-2020 by the Excise officials, the chemical examiner opined that it fermented toddyfree from Chloral

Hyderate and Diazepam. Report is marked as Ex.P3. The prosecution could not able to explain the delay of 35 days in sending the samples to the chemical examiner and where the sample was kept from 04-12-2020 to 01-02-2021 is also not explained by the prosecution. The sole ground of delay in sending the sample to chemical examiner is sufficient to say that the accused is entitled for acquittal,

Page No.5 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

as it raised reasonable doubt about the genuineness of seizure of liquor from the shop of the accused person.

17.It is admitted by the PW-2 that he did not mention serial number and batch number of seized property, at the time of raid no search memo was issued to the accused and did not file any documentary proof to show that alleged toddy shop belongs to accused.

18.The above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and also no reason was explained for the delay of (35) days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner, from the uncorroborated sole testimony of investigating officer and non examination of any of the persons in the said village to prove that the accused was selling the toddy as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968 and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of May, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.6 of 6 CC No. 588 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Anjamolla Hanma Goud/Panch witness None PW2: R. Ravi/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of ) PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 and Ex. Ex.P2: is C.O.R Ex.P3: is CE report. Ex.P4: is panchanama

DEFENCE: Nil

Material Objects Marked

For PROSECUTION: NIL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.1 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED

Present :Ms. Priyanka Sircilla,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,

Narayankhed.

Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022

C.C. No : 738 of 2021

Between:- The state of Telangana through Excise PS Narayankhed.

...Complainant.

And

Eppala Kistaiah S/o Narayana, Aged: 40 years, Caste: BC, Occ: Illigal Toddy Seller, R/o Devunipally village, Kalher Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before for final hearing before me on 31-05-2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Party-in- person for accused, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of C.O.R.No.87/2020 of Prohibition and Excise of PS

Narayankhed registered against Accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 34(a) of T.S Excise Prohibition Act 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- on 04-07-2020 on credible information about illegal selling of toddy in the house of accused situated at

Devunipally village of Kalher Mandal, LW-3 along with staff secured the presence of LW1 and LW-2 and conducted raid on the house of accused at 12.00 pm and they found that on seeing the excise officials, accused came out from the house and started running. The excise officials tried to apprehended him, but he managed to escape. On enquiry with local people they came to know that the accused selling toddy illegally in his house. LW3 along with LW1 and LW2 and

Page No.2 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

they started searching. During their search they found (96) plastic pockets, each containing (01) liters, total (96) liters of toddy without having valid permit or licence is an offence under excise act, toddy drawn two sample bottles of toddy each sample containing about (350) ml, fallowed the procedure and sealed the two sample bottles and seized remaining contraband under cover of panchanama.

Later, LW3 sue-moto registered a case in C.O.R.No.87 of 2020 against the accused for the offence U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Prohibition Act 1968 and took up the investigation. During the investigation, Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice was served on accused and after completion of investigation, after receipt of CE report, the Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Excise P.S. Narayankhed filed charge sheet.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and the Accused denied the accusation. A charge U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968. has been framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited

Exs.P-1 to P-5. To prove the case of the Prosecution examined LW-1 Kummari

Sailu, L.w.2- Kangti Sailu, as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. LW-3/ R.

Ravi/Investigating Officer as PW-3.

Page No.3 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

7.The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 signatures, of the PW1 and

PW2, Ex.P3 is marked it is C.O.R, Ex.P4 is marked it is CE report, Ex.P5 is panchanama report.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

10.Perused the record.

11.Now the point germane for my determinationis:

‘Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt’ ?

P O I N T:

12.It is the case of prosecution on reliable information that accused running a business of illegal selling toddy in his house situated at Devunipally village of

Kalher Mandal, immediately LW-3 along with LW1 and LW-2 rushed to the house of accused wherein conducted scene and seizure panchanama, seized this case property from the spot, drawn sample and seized under cover of Ex.P3, registered the case, send the sample for analysis and filed charge sheet.

13.To prove the seizure of toddy from the house of accused, the prosecution has examined the independent mediators as PW-1 and PW-2, however the evidence of both witnesses are hostile one, inspite of cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, nothing came on record to help the prosecution case, thus the evidence of PW1 and PW-2 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case.

Page No.4 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

14.Therefore there remains the sole testimony of PW-3 who is investigating officer who testified that he in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 after drawing the samples he seized the toddy under the seizure panchanama. It is already stated supra, both the mediators i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have not only denied the case of prosecution but also testified that the concerned excise police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Except identifying of their signatures, the

PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of both mediators are contradicting the evidence of PW-3 in respect of search and seizure of toddy from the scene of offence.

15.The learned APPO submitted that sole testimony of PW-3 is sufficient to give conviction. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that

PW-3 is an interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon without corroboration with the evidence of independent witness. However, the evidence of PW-3 cannot be thrown away on the ground that he is an interested witness, but his evidence can be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court. In the present case on hand, it is the evidence of Investigation officer that on reliable information about the illegal sale of toddy by accused in his small house, he along with his staff rushed to the small house of the accused person and seized the contraband.

16.The contraband sent to the chemical examiner on 04-07-2020 by the Excise officials, the chemical examiner opined that it fermented toddy free from Chloral hydrate and Diazepam i.e., Ex.P5. The prosecution could not able to explain the delay of 27 days in sending the samples to the chemical examiner and where the sample was kept from 04-07-2020 to 31-08-2020 is also not explained by the prosecution. The sole ground of delay in sending the sample to chemical examiner is sufficient to say that the accused is entitled for acquittal, as it raised reasonable

Page No.5 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

doubt about the genuineness of seizure of toddy from the house of the accused person.

17.It is admitted by the PW-3 that he did not mention serial number and batch number of seized property, at the time of raid no search memo was issued to the accused and did not file any documentary proof to show that alleged house belongs to accused.

18.The above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and also no reason was explained for the delay of (27) days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner, from the uncorroborated sole testimony of investigating officer and non examination of any of the persons in the said village to prove that the accused was selling the toddy as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused person.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968 and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of May, 2022.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

Page No.6 of 6 CC No. 738 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Kummari Sailu/Panch witness None PW2: Kangti Sailu/Panch witness PW3: R. Ravi/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of ) PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 and Ex.P2: is Signatures Ex.P3: is C.O.R Ex.P4: is CE report. Ex.P5: is panchanama

DEFENCE: Nil

Material Objects Marked

For PROSECUTION: NIL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.