Sri S.Srnivas

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PARCHUR

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.85 of 2014

Between:

1. Srungavarapu Rama Krishna Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah @ Peda Anjaiah, aged 78 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

2. Srungavarapu Raghu, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 49 years, Hindu, Working as Teacher, R/o Kodavalvaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal,

Parchur D.M.C. ... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Srungavaravpu Koteswara Rao (Died)

2. Srungavarapu Sita Maha Lakshmi, W/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 81 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

3. Srungavarapu Jaya Chandra Kishore, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

4. Srungavarapu Punna Rao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

5. Srungavarapu Madhu Sudhana Rao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C. (D.2 to D.4 are added as L.Rs of D1

as per order in I.A.No.456/2016 dt.21.08.2017.) ...Defendants.

This suit came before this Court on 13.03.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Narendra Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendants 2 to 5, 1st Defendant died, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit fled for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the XY wall of Plaint plan No.2 in the suit schedule property and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

1st Plaintiff, Defendant and one Subba Rao are the natural brothers and they are sons of one Srungavarapu Anjaiah. . On 24.08.1960 the 1st Plaintiff, the defendant and others partitioned their joint family properties by executing a registered partition deed. The certifed copy of the partition deed dt.24.08.1960 is fled along with plaint. As per the said partition deed, the D-schedule property there in wall was fell to the share of the 1st plaintiff. Like-wise the C-Schedule property there in was fallen to the share of the defendant. The B- schedule property in the said partition was fallen to the share of elder brother of the 1st plaintiff, namely, Subba Rao. The plaint plan No.1 will disclose the location of properties as per the partition Deed dt.24.08.1960. The plaint plan No.2 will refect the present physical features of the suit schedule properties and its surroundings.

Plaintiffs further submit that as per the partition deed dt.24.08.1960, a tiled house and site situated to the west of the property of the 1st plaintiff was fallen to share of the Srungavarapu

Subba Rao. On 27.05.1976 the said Subba Rao and his sons sold the said property to the 1st plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,500/- by way of executing a registered sale deed and delivered the physical 3 possession of the said property to the plaintiffs. The certifed copy of said sale deed dt.27.05.1996 is fled along with plaint.

The plaintiffs further submits that after the purchase of the property from the brother of the 1st plaintiff namely Subba Rao, the plaintiffs removed the old houses in their own site and in the property of

Subba Rao and constructed a new house in the suit schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan No.2 by keeping their remaining site to the west of the schedule property shown as AFGH in the plaint plan

No.2 as vacant. The defendant got his old house fallen in the partition to the west of the suit schedule property shown as GJBF in the plaint plan

No.2. Originally the entire property covered under plaint schedule is a old tiled house having old house walls on the four sides of the entire house. Even after the partition also the plaintiffs and defendant kept the said old house wall on their respective property as kept intact. The plaintiffs at the time of construction of their new house, they kept the old house wall on the North as intact without demolishing and raise a new wall over the part of the said old house wall.

Plaintiffs further submits that as per the registered partition deed

dt. 24.08.1960, some site to the North of plaint schedule property kept

as vacant for the ingress and egress to reach the Eastern panchayat bazaar from the house of the defendant and to send the rain and used up water from the site belonged to the Srungavarpu Subba Rao in to

Eastern Panchayat bazaar and the width of the said site is Four Feet width. The said arrangement was clearly recited in the partition deed dt.24.08.1960 and the same is binding on the defendant. The contents 4 of the said deed also will prove the exclusive ownership of the 1st plaintiff over the old house wall shown as XY wall shown in the plaint plan No.2 wall situated in the northern side of the suit schedule property.

The plaintiffs further submit that after the construction of new house in the suit schedule property, the both plaintiffs are enjoying the schedule property without any objection from anybody peacefully by paying necessary house taxes to the Gramapanchayat,

Kodavalivaripalem village in the name of lthe 2nd Plaintiff. The available house tax receipt dt.17.03.2014 in the name of the 2nd plaintiff for the suit schedule house property is fled along with plaint.

The plaintiffs further submit that recently the defendant removed his old house and began to construct a new house. There were long standing disputes between the family of plaintiffs and the defendant and there were no talking terms between them. Due to said enmity, the defendant is now making attempts to encroach into the old northern house wall of the plaintiffs shown as XY wall in the plaint plan No.2. The defendant has no manner of right over the said wall.

The plaintiffs further submits that the defendant has no manner of right over the XY wall of the plaint plan No.2 and the same is exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs and if the defendant was allowed to cause damage to the said wall, there would be possibility of danger to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs got right, title and possession over the XY wall shown in the plaint plan No.2. The defendant has no right over the said wall.

5

Plaintiffs further submits that they made several attempts by placing the illegal act done by the defendant before the village elders, but the defendant bluntly refused the words of elders and refused to stop their attempts. The defendant is openly proclaiming in the village that he will demolish the old wall belonged to plaintiffs shown as XY in the plaint plan No.2. The defendant got brutal strength in the village and he has no respect towards law. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens and they cannot resist the brutal acts of the Defendant. As such the plaintiffs are constrained to fle the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the XY wall of plaint plan No.2.

The plaintiffs further submit that during the pendency of above suit the 1st defendant died intestate on 27.06.2016, leaving behind the defendants 2 to 5 as his legal representatives being wife and sons respectively. The estate of the deceased 1st defendant is lying in the hands of defendants 2 to 5. The defendants 2 to 5 are necessary and proper parties to the above suit. (Para J is added as per orders in

I.A.No.456/16 dt.21.08.2017).

3.On receiving the notice from this Hon’ble Court the 1st

Defendant appeared and fled his written statement. After his death

Defendants 2 to 5 adopted the same written statement.

4.1st Defendant fled his written statement which in brief shows that:

6

The allegations mentioned in the plaint are false except the relationship among the parties. Defendant constructed RCC building in his site and also formed the gally with concrete and this defendant has been exercising his rights through the said gally. The plaintiff constructed XY compound wall on their north and this defendant never interfered with that wall in any manner. Beyond the north of XY wall there is no site left by plaintiffs. Upto XY wall the passage site of the defendant is situated. The averments in the plaint and afdavits that the defendant is trying to interfere with the XY wall and trying to cause damage to the wall and trying to encroach the site and Subba Rao has got passage rights through the northern side gally and such other allegations are false. The defendant specifcally denied the claim of the plaintiffs against the defendant. Suit has no cause of action and right of action. For wrongful gain the plaintiffs invented the averments of the plaint and afdavit and got fled the suit and petitions with false grounds and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. With these submissions prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of the both the sides this Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the fling o the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction in his favour ?

3. To what relief ?

5.To prove their contentions, both the parties produced their part of evidence. On behalf of Plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.

7

6.So far as defendants side evidence is concerned, 3rd defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked.

7.Heard both the sides.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted his arguments that plaintiffs who are having RCC building newly constructed within the site and covered with newly purchased site from Srungavarapu Subba

Rao and his sons is situated northern side situated with old wall it was still in existence and beyond that wall plaintiffs are having right over ingress and egress and to pass used water as well as rain water.

Defendant out of eye sore intentionally creating nuisance to the plaintiff from using the said site/gally. With these submissions prays to decree the suit granting relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant who are close relatives.

9.The learned counsel for the defendant submitted his arguments that there is no site relates to plaintiff beyond the northern side old wall to plaintiffs. The said side exclusively belongs to defendant.

Plaintiff clearly admitted in his cross examination about the said aspect.

The version of plaintiff is only to get more site on his northern side in the manner of wrongful way and fled the false suit with false suit with baseless allegations. The plaintiff in the cross-examination clearly stated that he has no right over the said gally and the wall shown under XY in

Ex.A.2 is a wall exists since long time i.e., house wall still existence.

There is no damage to the XY house wall and there is no inconvenience with that XY wall. Defendant never tried to damage the said house wall 8

XY and never tried to demolish. With these submissions prays to dismiss the suit as defendant never interfered with the right of the plaintiff.

10.Issue Nos.1 & 2:- Where as the evidence of PW.1, DW.1 and supporting documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 on behalf of the plaintiff.

The version of PW.1 in the manner of chief afdavit, it is nothing but true replica of plaint averments. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 are plaint plan No.1, Plaint plan No.2, Certifed copy of partition deed dt.24.08.1960, certifed copy of registered sale deed dt.27.05.1976 and house tax receipt dt.17.03.2014 for the plaint schedule property.

11.The version of PW.1 through his cross-examination shows that defendant is his elder brother along with him one Subba Rao is his brother. He admitted that all the properties are partitioned among their brothers as per registered partition deed dt.24.08.1960. Out of 2nd partition deed ‘D’ schedule properties fallen to the share where as ‘C’ schedule property fallen to Defendant. He admitted that he fled Ex.A.1 plan Ex.A.2 plans along with his plaint. He admitted that Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2 does not refect specifc measurement of the plaint schedule property. He admitted that the gully situates of Northern side of property relates to him as well as defendant refecting in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 fallen to the share of the defendant as Item No.2 in Ex.A.3 partition deed. He has no right over the said gally. The wall shown under XY in Ex.A.2 is a wall exists since long time i.e., house wall still in existence. There is no damage to the XY house wall and there is no inconvenience with that XY wall. Defendant never tried to damage the said house wall XY and never tried to demolish. He admitted that his contention in the suit on hand is 9 that Defendant tried to demolish XY house wall with a view to encroach his house site. He denied the suggestion that there is no cause of action for fling the suit on hand and that out of petty dispute in family he fled this false suit. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A.2 is not correct and that his property is only within AXYD but he is wrongly claiming ABCD.

He denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned survey number of the property and not fled any schedule relating to the suit on hand. He denied the suggestion that only to harass the Defendant he fled this false suit which is not at all maintenance under law.

12.So far as DW.1 is concerned 3rd Defendant fled his chief afdavit reiterating the written statement averments.

Coming to the cross-examination of DW.1 he admitted that his father/D1, 1st plaintiff and one Subba Rao are natural brothers and they all partitioned the properties under Ex.A.3 a registered partition deed.

He admitted that Ex.A.1 plan was specifcally mentioned in Ex.A.3.

partition taken place as per Ex.A.1 plan and also separated their properties as per Ex.A.2 plan and constructed respective houses. He admitted that as per Ex.A.1 a site on Northern side left over for ingress and egress and the said path way having width of about 4 feet and the said path way arrangement specifcally mentioned Ex.A.3. As per

Ex.A.4 B schedule property of Ex.A.1 purchased by 1st plaintiff from

Subba Rao. After Ex.A.4 transaction the properties were separated and respective houses constructed as shown in the Ex.A.2 plan. He admitted that originally property is tiled house and during the course of time it was demolished and entire property was shared. He admitted that on 10

Northern side there is old house wall is still in existence which is width of 2 ½ feet. He admitted that plaintiff converted the said Northern side house wall as his compound wall at the time of laying foundation. He admitted that plaintiff got right of eves site for the said Northern house wall. The dispute in the suit is relating to Northern side house wall of old tiled house. The dispute with regard to said Northern side house wall connecting with eves site as they are contending that Plaintiff has no eves site. Whereas plaintiff claiming right for eves site. D.5 is his younger brother. He admitted that a criminal case fled by plaintiffs against D.5 for the offence U/sec.506, 509 IPC in C.C.No.39/2015 pertaining to the dispute in the suit on hand. He admitted that D.5 faced conviction and fne of Rs.5,000/- imposed. He denied the suggestion that they are intentionally interfering with the right of plaintiffs with regard to the eves site on Northern side compound wall of old tiled house without having right and title by him.

13.On observing the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 it was clear that the entire property under plaint plan 1 & 2 shared among brothers.

They are having respective houses in their allotted sites. Both the parties admitting about Ex.A.3 partition under registered partition deed.

The contention of the plaintiff is that he is having eves site for the northern side where old tiled house previously exists and the said tiled house wall was used by him as northern side compound wall to him.

Defendant also admitting about the existence of said old house wall and the same was kept as it is by plaintiff even plaintiff constructed new house by fxing old house wall as his northern side compound wall.

11

Beyond the said wall no site exists relating to the plaintiff and the same was admitted by PW.1. In the gally as per the partition deed defendant got right. In such circumstances it has to be observed by this Court whether there is any damage caused to the XY compound wall by the defendant. This Court observed the cross-examination of PW.1 he clearly admitted that XY compound wall still in existence and there is no damage caused by defendant with regard to the XY wall and never tried to interfere. As per the relief claimed in the suit that he is praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants over the XY wall of plaint plan No.2. With that admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination clear that defendant never touched the said XY wall. There is no inconvenience with that XY compound wall and defendant never tried to damage the house wall XY and never tried to demolish. In such circumstances, there is no interference in the rightful enjoyment of the plaintiff by the defendant. Specifcally with regard to the relief claimed by the plaintiff relating to XY wall, there is no damage or demolition taken place from the side of defendant. In such circumstances the admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination is clearly appearing balance of convenience in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.

Hence, Issue No.1 with regard to XY wall is concerned it is in possession of the plaintiffs and as there is no such damage or demolition from the side of DW.1. There is no need of granting any permanent injunction because of absence of interference from the side of defendant.

Accordingly issues Nos.1 & 2 are answered.

12

14.Issue No.3 :- In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of P.J.C.J. Court, Chirala,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintifs: For Defendants:

PW.1: S.Rama Krishna Rao DW.1: S. Jaya Chandra Kishore.

Documents Marked

For Plaintifs:-

Ex.A.1 : Plaint plan No.1.

Ex.A.2 : Plaint plan No.2.

Ex.A.3 : Certifed copy of Registered Partition Deed dt.24.08.1960 executed between 1st Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and others.

Ex.A.4 : Certifed copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 27.05.1976 executed by Srungavarapu Subba Rao and others in favour of 1st Plaintiff. Ex.A.5 : House tax receipt dt.17.03.2014 for the plaint schedule property, in the name of 2nd plaintiff, issued by Panchayat Secretary, Kodavalivaripalem.

For Defendants:- N I L -

P.J.C.J.Chirala FAC.J.C.J.Parchur.

13

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PARCHUR

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.85 of 2014

Between:

1. Srungavarapu Rama Krishna Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah @ Peda Anjaiah, aged 78 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

2. Srungavarapu Raghu, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 49 years, Hindu, Working as Teacher, R/o Kodavalvaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal,

Parchur D.M.C. ... Plaintiffs.

And

1. Srungavaravpu Koteswara Rao (Died)

2. Srungavarapu Sita Maha Lakshmi, W/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 81 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

3. Srungavarapu Jaya Chandra Kishore, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

4. Srungavarapu Punna Rao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C.

5. Srungavarapu Madhu Sudhana Rao, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Parchur D.M.C. (D.2 to D.4 are added as L.Rs of D1

as per order in I.A.No.456/2016 dt.21.08.2017.) ...Defendants.

This is a suit fled for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the XY wall of Plaint plan No.2 in the suit schedule property and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 28.10.2014 Plaint fled on : 28.10.2014.

14 .Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose for the suit arose about two days back when the defendant without manner of any right and without possession is openly proclaiming in the village that he will demolish the old wall belonged to plaintiffs shown as XY in the Plaint Plan No.2 with the help of brutal fore without right and when the plaintiffs got lawful right, title and possession over the XY wall plaint plan No.2 and when they became unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant and at Kodavalivaripalem village, Karamchedu Mandal where the suit schedule property situated which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

Valuation :

The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.816/- is paid U/s.26(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit came before this Court on 13.03.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Narendra Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendants 2 to 5, 1st Defendant died, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. That each party do bear their own costs. Costs of Plaintiff Rs.818/-(Institutional costs)(CM&FCnot fled) Costs of Defendant Rs.NIL (CM & FC not fled) (Plaint schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2.00 (CM & FC not fled)

Stamp on Plaint816.00 Total 818.00

P.J.C.J.Chirala

FAC.J.C.J.Parchur.

15

1 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

Calendar Case No.264/ 2018

Between:

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

01. Kommaragiri Subba Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, caste Yanadi, age 27 years, R/o Bhimavaram village, Inkollu Mandal.

02. Jetty Narendra Prasad, S/o Koteswara Rao, Caste by Kamma, age 36 years, R/o Inkollu village and Mandal, Nowkarnama holder, M/s.Lalitha Wines, Gs.No.PR114/2017-19,

Inkollu village and Mandal. ....Accused

The case coming on 13.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the state-complainant and Sri P.Surendra, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Parchoor, has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.26/2018 against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Sec. 34 (A) of

A.P.Excise Act.

02.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 10.06.2018, as per the instructions of the Director of Enforcement wing, A.P., Vijaywada and under the supervision of the Inspector of Police, STF Team-

II, Vijayawada, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2,

2 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

Vijayawada(L.W.1) along with R.Srinivasa Babu, Proh. & Excise Constable, STF Team-2,

Vijayawada (L.W.2) conducting raids for Proh. & Excise offences. When, they reached at main road which is at about 100 meters distance to M/s. Durga wines,

Gs.No.PR.117/2017-19, they found the accused raiding on one TVS XL Moped with one gunny bag and on card board box kept in front of the vehicle and tried to escape on seeing the uniform staff. On suspicious circumstances, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) detained him with the active assistance of staff and on questioning about the reasons for his attempt to escape and contents of the bag and box. The accused confessed that the bag containing liquor bottles and the box containing beer bottles. On that, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) tried to secure mediator, but in vain. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2,

Vijayawada(L.W.1) searched the bag and box and found that the bag containing 1)

Aristocrat premium reserve whisky 180 ml bottles-09, 2) Mc.Dowelll’s No.1 Gold brandy 180 ml bottles-10, 3) Masion Hosue XO Brandy 180 ml bottles-09, 4) Imperial

Blue Classic Grain whisky 180 ml bottles-09 (total 37) and the card board box containing 1) King Fisher Strong Premium beer 650 ml bottles-12, 2) Budweiser king of beers 650 ml bottles-8 (total-18). On observing and noticed that the bottles are duty paid liquor and HEALs which was affixed on the caps of the bottles were removed, company seals and caps are intact. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise

Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) verfied the vehicle which is used for transportation of liquor and beer bottles and noticed it is TVS XL Super duty two wheeler bearing registration No.AP 27 AR-2586. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise

Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) verified the vehicle particulars through

RTO vehicle inofrmation APP and noticed that the vehicle belongs to one Jetty

Koteswara Rao ie., A2, registration date 28.12.2012 and other information belogns to

3 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur the vehicle is tallied. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2,

Vijayawada(L.W.1) questioned him about having any license or permits to the liquor and beer bottles, but he failed to produce the same. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) questioned about the source of supply of the liquor and Beer bottles, the accused/A1 confessed that the said liquor and beer bottles along with two wheeler were supplied by accused/A2 who is working in M/s. Durga wines, Inkollu with a direction to handed over the same at Dolphine

Restaurant, Inkollu. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2,

Vijayawada(L.W.1) along with A1 and staff at about 10.20 A.M reached M/s. Duirga wines and notice A2 present in the shop counter and transacting business. Then,

M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) questioned and obtained the identity particualrs of A2 and also questioned about his nowkarnama licence, but he failed to produce the same and stated that he has no nowkarnama of this shop, at present the request of the licensee of M/s.Durga wines he was conducting the business. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector,

STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) questioned about accused/A1 and regarding the supply of liquor bottles along with two wheeler, the accused/A2 stated that he gave liquor and beer bottles to A1 along with his two wheeler and requested him to hand over the same at Dolphine Restaurant, Inkollu. Then, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise

Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) questioned about the records of M/s.

Durga wines shop, A2 stated that he is working as nowkarnama in M/s. Lalitha wines,

Inkollu. Thereupon, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2,

Vijayawada(L.W.1) drew one bottle from each bran (total-06) as samples for chemical analysis purpose, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by M.Atchutha Rao,

Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) and both the accused, arrested both the accused after informing the ground of their arrest as contemplated

4 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur u/s 50 and 51 Cr.P.C, procedure, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of special report drafted by M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, STF

Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) at the scene of offence. Later, M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, STF Team-2, Vijayawada(L.W.1) handed over the accused along with case paper and seized property before Proh. & Excise Station, Parchur. Basing on the special report, A.Rekha, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) registered this case and later she sent samples to Chemical examiner Guntur. After receipt of chemical examiner report and after completion of investigation, A.Rekha, Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) laid charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Sec.34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act.

03.This case was taken on file under Section under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act against the accused 1 and 2.

04. Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 6 .

06.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in Telugu for which they denied and stated no defence witnesses.

07.Heard both the sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise beyond all reasonable doubt ?

5 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

09.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that arrest of the accused 1 and 2 and seizure of the property under the cover of special report under Ex.P.1 itself is sufficient proves the ingredients of Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act, accused 1 and 2 are liable for punishment and prays to punish her according to law.

10.The learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 submitted his arguments that no independent mediators were examined by prosecution. They failed to secure local independent respectable mediators for the alleged arrest and seizure. Prosecution failed to follow the arrest and seizure procedure as noted in Criminal Procedure

Code. Confession before police officer cannot be taken into consideration and out of fear about the police accused given confession statement. Section 25 of Indian

Evidence act also clearly explained that in the absence of any mediator and basing on the confession given by the accused before police officer it cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal and prays to acquit the accused.

11.POINT :-

The version of P.W.1 who is excise official clearly shows about the arrest of the accused 1 and 2 and seizure of the property from their possession. But it was not clear that accused 1 and 2 were arrested in the presence of any independent mediator. Ex.P.1 is nothing but special report drafted by excise police themselves about the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of the property. Without the supporting evidence of any independent witnesses in the manner of mediator the sole testimony of police official cannot be taken as a trustworthy one. Definitely the provisions of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act failed to follow by prosecution and the evidence adduced on prosecution both oral and documentary evidence is insufficient to attract ingredients of section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act. Even special report does not

6 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur contain the individual persons with whom investigating agency tried to secure as mediators. It was also not clearly placed before this court any written notice offered by investigating officer to the local inhabitants to act as mediators. Without presence of any mediator arrest of the accused and alleged confession before police cannot be taken as a trustworthy evidence. P.W.1 himself is the person who drafted Ex.P.1 special report, who arrested the accused, who lifted the sample and done the remaining part of investigation. The evidence of P.W.2 shows registering the case, sending samples to chemical analysis and laid charge sheet against the accused 1 and

2. Non-supporting, evidence by the side of independent mediator, this court come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 6 ie.,sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:M.Atchutha Rao, Proh. & Excise S.I, S.T.C Team-2, Vijayawada - None- PW.2: A.Rekha, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchoor

7 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/ Special Report Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/Letter of advice Ex.P4/Analysis report Ex.P5/Analysis report Ex.P6/Letter to Deputy Commissioner for permission to confiscation Ex.P.7/Challana

FOR DEFENCE ---- NIL ----

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

M.O.1 is the one sample 180 ml bottle of Aristocrat premium reserve whisky M.O.2 is the sample 180 ml bottle of Mc.Dowell’s No.1 Gold brandy M.O.3 is the one sample 180 ml bottle Masion House premium Fench Brandy M.O.4 is the one sample 180 ml bottle of Imperial blue classic grain whisky M.O.5 is the one sample 650 ml bottle of king fisher strong beer M.O.6 is the one sample 650 ml bottle of Budweiser king of beer.

Ild/- S.S. P.J.C.J, Chirala FAC: J.F.C.M, Parchur

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

8 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.264 of 2018

Date of offence:10.06.2018 Date of report: 10.06.2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 10.06.2018 Date of release of accused: 11.06.2018 Date of commencement of trial:22.11.2019 Date of closure of trial:06.03.2020 Date of Judgment:20.03.2020

Between :

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

01. Kommaragiri Subba Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, caste Yanadi, age 27 years, R/o Bhimavaram village, Inkollu Mandal.

02. Jetty Narendra Prasad, S/o Koteswara Rao, Caste by Kamma, age 36 years, R/o Inkollu village and Mandal, Nowkarnama holder, M/s.Lalitha Wines, Gs.No.PR114/2017-19,

Inkollu village and Mandal. ....Accused

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

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 6 ie.,sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under

Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of accused 1 and 2 before this court,

9 // 9

C.C.264 of 2018 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, after framing charge under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 22.11.2019 and concluded on 06.03..2020, during trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 6 and prosecution side evidence was closed. After closure prosecution evidence accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found against them, for which, they denied the same and stated no defence witnesses. Arguments heard on both the sides. On 20.03.2020, Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chriala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Additional District &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

1 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

Calendar Case No.14/ 2019

Between:

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

Shaik China Masthanvali, S/o Kaleshavali, caste by Muslim, age 28 years, R/o Alavalapadu village,

J.Pangulur Mandal. ....Accused

The case coming on 13.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the state-complainant and Sri K.Solomon, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Parchoor, has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.47/2017 against the accused for the offence under Sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act.

02.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 20.07.2017, as per the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of

Proh. & Excise, Prakasam District, Ongole, E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) along with his staff left the station to detect excise offences. AT about 9-00

A.M, when they reached down capta situated at the right side of the road which leads to Pangulur from Pavuluru which is ½ KM distance to Pavuluru village of Inkollu

Mandal, they found the accused by holding one white plastic bag in a suspicious circumstances. Then, E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) tried to

2 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur secure mediators, but in vain. E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) he himself opened the bag and noticed that the bag containing Old Admiral Special

VSOP Brandy 180 ml capacity bottles-15 and on observing the bottles they found that bottles are duty paid liquor and H.E.A.Ls which was affixed on the caps of the bottles was tampered, company seals and caps are intact. The accused failed to produce licence or permission to the liquor bottles. Then, E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Parchur (L.W.3) drawn one bottle as sample, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) and the accused, arrested the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of special report. Basing on the special report, E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Parchur (L.W.3) registered this case. Later, he followed the entire procedure for sending samples to chemical examiner etc., After receipt of chemical examiner report and after completion of investigation, A.Rekha, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34 (A) of

A.P.Excise Act.

03.This case was taken on file under Section under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act against the accused.

04. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P6 and M.O.1.

3 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

06.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against him in Telugu for which he denied and stated no defence witnesses.

07.Heard both the sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise beyond all reasonable doubt ?

09.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that arrest of the accused and seizure of the property under the cover of special report under Ex.P.1 itself is sufficient proves the ingredients of Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act, accused is liable for punishment and prays to punish her according to law.

10.The learned counsel for accused submitted his arguments that no independent mediators were examined by prosecution. They failed to secure local independent respectable mediators for the alleged arrest and seizure. Prosecution failed to follow the arrest and seizure procedure as noted in Criminal Procedure

Code. Confession before police officer cannot be taken into consideration and out of fear about the police accused given confession statement. Section 25 of Indian

Evidence act also clearly explained that in the absence of any mediator and basing on the confession given by the accused before police officer it cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal and prays to acquit the accused.

11.POINT :-

The version of P.W.1 who is excise official clearly shows about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property from their possession. But it was not clear that accused was arrested in the presence of any independent mediator. Ex.P.1 is nothing but special report drafted by excise police themselves about the alleged

4 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur arrest of the accused and seizure of the property. Without the supporting evidence of any independent witnesses in the manner of mediator the sole testimony of police official cannot be taken as a trustworthy one. Definitely the provisions of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act failed to follow by prosecution and the evidence adduced on prosecution both oral and documentary evidence is insufficient to attract ingredients of section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act. Even special report does not contain the individual persons with whom investigating agency tried to secure as mediators. It was also not clearly placed before this court any written notice offered by investigating officer to the local inhabitants to act as mediators. Without presence of any mediator arrest of the accused and alleged confession before police cannot be taken as a trustworthy evidence. P.W.1 himself is the person who drafted Ex.P.1 special report, who arrested the accused, who lifted the sample and done the remaining part of investigation. The evidence of P.W.2 shows registering the case, sending samples to chemical analysis and laid charge sheet against the accused. Non-supporting, evidence by the side of independent mediator, this court come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie.,sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

5 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:E.M.Babu, Proh. & Excise Inspector, parchoor - None- PW.2: A.Rekha, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchoor

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/ Special Report Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/Letter of advice Ex.P4/Analysis report Ex.P5/Letter to Deputy Commissioner of P & E, Ongole Ex.P6/Challana

FOR DEFENCE ---- NIL ----

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

M.O.1 is the sample bottle of Old Admiral Spl. VSOP Brandy Ild/-S.S. P.J.C.J, Chirala FAC: J.F.C.M, Parchur

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

6 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.14 of 2019

Date of offence:20.07.2017 Date of report: 20.07.2017 Date of apprehension of accused: 20.07.2017 Date of release of accused: 21.07.2017 Date of commencement of trial:06.03.2020 Date of closure of trial:06.03.2020 Date of Judgment:20.03.2020

Between :

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

Shaik China Masthanvali, S/o Kaleshavali, caste by Muslim, age 28 years, R/o Alavalapadu village,

J.Pangulur Mandal. ....Accused

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

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie.,sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 06.03.2020 and

7 // 7

C.C.14 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur concluded on the same day, during trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 and prosecution side evidence was closed. After closure prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, he denied the same and stated no defence witnesses. Arguments heard on both the sides. On 20.03.2020, Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chriala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Additional District &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

1 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

Calendar Case No.56/ 2019

Between:

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

Thummala Balaji, S/o Anjaneyulu, Caste:Naidu,

age 51 years, R/o Parchoor village, Parchoor Mandal.....Accused

The case coming on 13.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the state-complainant and Sri M.Veeranjaneyulu, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Parchoor, has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.38/2018 against the accused for the offence under Sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act.

02.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 02.10.2018, as per the instructions of the Station House Officer,

Parchoor and in the eve of dry-day ie., Gandhi Jayanthi, R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) along with his staff left the station, proceeded to patrolling for Proh. & Excise Offences, when they reached to Nagendraswami

Temple which situated eastern side to Indra colony in Parchoor village of Parchoor

Mandal, they found the accused by holding one plastic bag in a suspicious circumstances. Then, R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) tried to secure mediators, but in vain. R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector,

2 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

Parchur (L.W.3) he himself opened the bag and noticed that the bag containing HD

Heavens Door whisky 180 ml capacity bottles-09 and on observing the bottles they found that bottles are duty paid liquor and H.E.A.Ls which was affixed on the caps of the bottles was tampered, company seals and caps are intact. The accused failed to produce licence or permission to the liquor bottles. Then, R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) drawn one bottle as sample, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) and the accused, arrested the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of special report. Basing on the special report, R.V.Ramanamma,

Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Parchur (L.W.3) registered this case. Later, she followed the entire procedure for sending samples to chemical examiner etc., After receipt of chemical examiner report and after completion of investigation, A.Rekha, Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Parchur (L.W.4) laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act.

03.This case was taken on file under Section under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act against the accused.

04. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P6 and M.O.1.

06.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against him in Telugu for which he denied and stated no defence witnesses.

3 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

07.Heard both the sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise beyond all reasonable doubt ?

09.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments that arrest of the accused and seizure of the property under the cover of special report under Ex.P.1 itself is sufficient proves the ingredients of Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act, accused is liable for punishment and prays to punish her according to law.

10.The learned counsel for accused submitted his arguments that no independent mediators were examined by prosecution. They failed to secure local independent respectable mediators for the alleged arrest and seizure. Prosecution failed to follow the arrest and seizure procedure as noted in Criminal Procedure

Code. Confession before police officer cannot be taken into consideration and out of fear about the police accused given confession statement. Section 25 of Indian

Evidence act also clearly explained that in the absence of any mediator and basing on the confession given by the accused before police officer it cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal and prays to acquit the accused.

11.POINT :-

The version of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are excise officials clearly shows about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property from their possession. But it was not clear that accused was arrested in the presence of any independent mediator.

Ex.P.1 is nothing but special report drafted by excise police themselves about the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of the property. Without the supporting evidence of any independent witnesses in the manner of mediator the sole testimony of police official cannot be taken as a trustworthy one. Definitely the provisions of

4 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act failed to follow by prosecution and the evidence adduced on prosecution both oral and documentary evidence is insufficient to attract ingredients of section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act. Even special report does not contain the individual persons with whom investigating agency tried to secure as mediators.

It was also not clearly placed before this court any written notice offered by investigating officer to the local inhabitants to act as mediators. Without presence of any mediator arrest of the accused and alleged confession before police cannot be taken as a trustworthy evidence. P.W.1 himself is the person who drafted Ex.P.1 special report, who arrested the accused, who lifted the sample and done the remaining part of investigation and registering the case, she further deposed that their Inspector by name A.Rekha (L.W.4), sending the samples to chemical analysis and laid charge sheet against the accused. Non-supporting, evidence by the side of independent mediator, this court come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie.,sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

5 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:R.V.Ramanamma, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Parchoor - None- PW.2: B.Suresh, Proh. & Excise Constable, Parchoor

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/ Special Report Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/Letter of advice Ex.P4/Analysis report Ex.P5/Letter to Deputy Commissioner of P & E, Ongole Ex.P6/Challana

FOR DEFENCE ---- NIL ----

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

M.O.1 is the sample bottle of HD Heavens door whisky

Ild/- S.S. P.J.C.J, Chirala FAC: J.F.C.M, Parchur

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

6 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.56 of 2019

Date of offence:02.10.2018 Date of report: 02.10.2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 02.10.2018 Date of release of accused: 02.10.2018 Date of commencement of trial:13.12.2019 Date of closure of trial:06.03.2020 Date of Judgment:20.03.2020

Between :

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Parchoor. …Complainant -: And :-

Thummala Balaji, S/o Anjaneyulu, Caste:Naidu,

age 51 years, R/o Parchoor village, Parchoor Mandal.....Accused

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

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie.,sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 06.03.2020 and

7 // 7

C.C.56 of 2019 J.F.C.M.Court, Parchur concluded on the same day, during trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 and prosecution side evidence was closed. After closure prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, he denied the same and stated no defence witnesses. Arguments heard on both the sides. On 20.03.2020, Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S. Srinivas,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chriala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Additional District &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// TRUE COPY //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

1/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PARHCUR

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

Friday, the 13 th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.06 of 2020

Between:

Devarakonda Nagaraju, S/o Anjenyulu, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Doctor, R/o H.No.4-50, Near Subbaiah Cheruvu, Duddukuru post, Inkollu Mandal, Praksam District. …Plaintif -: And :-

Aala Vengamamba, W/o Aala Rama Murthy,aged about 57 years, Hindu, Govt. Employee, Ofce Subordinate, Tahasildar Ofce, Pamuru, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendant

This suit came before this Court on 06.03.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri A.Rama Krishna, Advocate for plaintif and the defendant remained exparate, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of plaintif and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

01.This is a suit fled by the plaintif for recovery of the amount of

Rs.1,64,900/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note Dt:30.- 07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif and agreeing to repay the said amount either to him or to his order on demand with interest at 24 % per annum and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

On 30.07.2019, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif for his family expenses and executed promissory note on the same date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum either to the plaintif on his order on demand. Inspite of several demands made by the

2/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur plaintif personally, the defendant failed to repay the promissory note due amount, the defendant is evading the payment on one pretext or the other. On 6.11.2019, the plaintif got issued legal notice demanding the defendant to repay the suit amount, the defendant received the same on 21.11.2019, but he kept quite. Hence, the suit.

03.Even though the summons were served on defendant, but failed to attend before the Court.

04.To substantiate the case of plaintif, plaintif himself examined as

P.w.1, who fled his chief afdavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief where she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint. To prove the ocula evidence of P.W.1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.A.1. On perusal of Ex.A.1 it seems that the defendant said to have borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif on 30.07.2019 and executed promissory note on the same date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a. The plaintif demanded the defendant to repay the suit amount personally, but the defendant failed to repay the same. On 16.11.2019, the plaintif got issued legal notice under Ex.A2 demanding the defendant to repay the suit amount, the defendant received the same under Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment. A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintif has successfully proved his case that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- and subsequently inspite of demands made by the plaintif personally and issuance of legal notice, the defendant failed to repay the debt and as such the plaintif is entitled to the suit claim.

3/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur

05.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif and against the defendant for Rs.1,64,900/- along with subsequent interest at 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 % per annum till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses examined

For plaintif:For Defendant :

P.W.1 : Devarakonda Nagaraju - N O N E - (Chief afdaviti

/// Documents marked ///

For plaintif :

Ex.A1 is the Promissory Note Dt:30.07.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A2 is the ofce copy Dt:16.11.2019 Register legal Notice got issued by plaintif to defendant.

Ex.A.3 is the Postal receipt Dt:16.11.2019

Ex.A4 is the Served Acknowledgment.

For Defendant : --- NIL ---

P.J.C.J, Chirala FAC: J.C.J, Parchur

4/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur

5/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PARHCUR

Present: Sri S.Srinivas, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC:Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

Friday, the 13 th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.06 of 2020

Between:

Devarakonda Nagaraju, S/o Anjenyulu, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Doctor, R/o H.No.4-50, Near Subbaiah Cheruvu, Duddukuru post, Inkollu Mandal, Praksam District. …Plaintif -: And :-

Aala Vengamamba, W/o Aala Rama Murthy,aged about 57 years, Hindu, Govt. Employee, Ofce Subordinate, Tahasildar Ofce, Pamuru, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.… Defendant

This is a suit fled by the plaintif for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,64,900/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note Dt:30.-07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif and agreeing to repay the said amount either to him or to his order on demand with interest at 24 % per annum and for costs of the suit.

Plaint Presented on : 31.12.2019 Plaint fled on : 10.01.2020.

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif on 30.07.2019 for her family expenses purpose and executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintif on the same day and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand, when the plaintif demanded the defendant several times to repay the Pro-Note amount. The plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 16.11.2019 for the above debt and he received the same on 21.11.2019, but she did not give any reply or choose to discharge the above Pro-Note debt. The entire Pro-Note transaction took place at Parchur within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Valuation : The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,64,900/-, on which a court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

6/6

O.S.No.06 of 2020

J.C.J. Court, Parchur

This suit came before this Court on 06.03.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri A. Rama Krishna, Advocate for plaintif and the defendant remained exparate, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of plaintif and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant do pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,64,900/- together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of fling of the suit i.e, 31.12.2019 to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.6,586/- towards institution costs of the suit. (No CM & FC is fled by Plaintif ).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 13th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor Plaintif Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat2.00-

Stamp on Plaint4,126.00- Stamps on Process 35.00- Advocate's fee 2,323.00 - Writing charges100.00- Total institution costs6,586.00-

P.J.C.J., Chirala. FAC.J.C.J.Parchur