Smt.S.Sujatha, B.A.,B.L.,

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. .312/2016. AMAGISTRATE : PIDUGURALLA

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

Date of Commencement of ClOsure of Sentence of Apprehensio Released on bail Offence trial trial order n

19.10.2016 21.10.2016

14.10.2016 06.11.2012 21.02.2014 21.02.2014

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: On 24.09.2016 this case was taken on file against the acCused, On 07.10.2016 copies of case documents were furnished to the aceuc od and accused is exXamined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charge under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act was Tramed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 14.10.2016 P.W.l to P.W.3 examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and Mo.1 to Mo.,4 are marked. On 19.10.2016 P. W4 examined and Ex.P5 is marked. After the closure of prosecution eVidence accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence, which he denied and reported no defence evidence. On 20.10.2016 heard the arguments on both sides, On 21.10.2016 Judgment pronounced same day. Hence, the delay.

Description of the complainant: State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Piduguralla

CHALLAGUNDLA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/0.VENKATESWARLU, AGED 35 Description of the accused: YEARS, KAMMA, R/O.KoTHAGANESUNIPADU VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL.

: Under sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Offence : Not guilty Plea of the accused :Accused is found not guilty. Finding In the result, acCCused is found not quilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) Sentence of A.P Excise Act. Thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of acCused shall stand canceled. Accused is directed to execute self bond under sec.437-A Cr.P.C to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. Mo.1 to Mo.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDICIAL FIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble Chief judl. Magistrate, Gurntur.

Copy to

The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Guntur.

PIDUGURALLA

IN THE COURT OF jUbICIAL FIRSTe AS5 MAGISTRATE :

Present: Smt. s, SUJATHA, 8.A., B.L.,

ludiclal irst Class Magistrate, Piduguralla.

of October, 2016

Friday, this the 21" day

Calendar Case No.312/2016.

Between:

State : Prohibition & Excise Inspector,

Pidugur alla ...Complainant.

And

Challagundla Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Venkateewarlu, Aged 35 years,

Kamma, R/O.Kothaganesunipadu village, Machavaram Mandal.

.., Accused

This case is coming for hearing betore me in the presence of Addl, Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri u Koteswara Kao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

The Proh, & Excise Inspector, p&E Station, Piduguralla filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.34la) of A.P Excise Act.

The brief facts of the charge sheet contents are that:

The offence took place on Pillutla road, Kothaganesunipadu village, Machavaram

Mandal. On 06.11.2012 L.W.5-K. Ravi Kumar, P&E, Sub-Inspector, Piduguralla

accompanied by L.W.3- G. Mariyadasu, and L.W.4- G. Kondala Rao, P&E constables.

Piduguralla along with and other staff while conducting patroling for prohibition and

excise offences at about 1.30 PM called L.W.1- Chowdam Venkateswarlu and L.W.2

Alaparthi Syamsundara Rao informed about the purpose of their faid. On that L.W.5 got affixed the search proceedings to the door, as nobody in the house available. Later all of them entered in to the house, in the varandah they found one white polythene bag. On verification L.W.5 found 15 Mc.Dowells brandy dip bottles of 90 ml each, 4 Old Label whisky nip bottles of 180 ml each, 6 Satyam Prestige whisky nip bottles of 180 ml each and 7 Bag Piper whisky nip bottles of 180 ml each. L.W.5 enquired in the village to trace out the accused but on vain. On that L.W.5 separated 4 bottles i.e. one bottle from each brand got them tied with thread, and affixed seal and identity slips. L.W.3 seized the sealed sample bottles and the remaining 28 liquor bottles under the cover of mediators report and returned to police station.

3 Basing on the mediators report, L.W.5 registered a case in Pr No.340/12-13 for trne offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. L.W.3 sent the samnles to the Chemical Examine 2 under a cover of letter of advice through e Hon'ble Court and after completion of investigation L.w.7. P. ageswara Rao p&t Inspector. Piduguralla filed charge sheet.

Hence, the charge sheet.

During the course of raids on 21.01.20l4 L.W.6- P. Rathaiah, P&E, Sub-Inspector, 4 Piduguralla arrested the accused and produceg before the court for judicial remand.

This case was taken on file U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. 5 On appearance of accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to 6 him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C charge for the 0llence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act was framed.

read over and explained to him in Telugu, tor which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, on behalf or the prosecution, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.Pl to P5 and Mo.l to Mo.4.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by

explaining the incriminating evidence, which he denied and reported no defence

evidence.

8. Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused.

9 Considering the submissions made on both sides, the point that falls for consideration is:

1.Whether accused possessed ID arrack and thereby committed an

offence punishable under sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the quilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT Nos.1 & 2:-To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined L.W.3

G. Mariya Dasu, P&E constable, Piduguralla as P.W.l, L.w.5- K. Ravi Kumar, P&E, Sub

Inspector, Piduguralla as P.W.2, L.W.7- P. Naneswara Rao, P&E, Inspector, Piduguralla as

P.W.3 and L.W.1- Chowdam Venkateswarlu as p N 4 who is independent wItness.

11. As seen from the evidence on record P w A except identifying his signature on tne mediatornama marked as ExP5 not supported ho version of prosecution that at the time 3 of search of the house of the accUsed ho Was present and from there 32 liquor bottles lifted by excise officials.

On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.l is that on 06.11.2012 he along with 12 Prohibition & Excise staff accompanied P.wN 2 and Went to Kothaganesunipadu to a house bearing No.5-07 and in the presence of modiators the doors Were opened and noticed polythene cover containing 32 liquor botles. Then P.W.2 lifted one bottle from each category seized the same under the cover of mediatornama marked as Ex.P1

During his cross examination he denosed that he do not know whether sSub

Inspector, Machavaram and staff attested Ex Pl, but they have accompanied the excise officials ad admitted that at the time of seizure of liquor bottles accused was not present.

13. The evidence of P.W.2 is that he has deputed P.W.1 for securing mediators before entering into the house bearing No.5-07 and after the arrival of P.W.4 and L.W.2

Alaparthi Syamsundara Rao as mediators he has affixed 165 Cr.P.C proceedings on the door, opened the same and noticed 15 bottles of Mc.Dowell brandy, 4 Old Label whisky nip bottles, 6 Satyam Prestige whisky nip bottles and 7 Bag Piper whisky nip bottles total 32 liguor bottles without EAL particulars in the house and from each category he has lifted one sample bottle marked as Mo.1 to Mo.4 seized the same under the cover of

Ex.P1, registered the same as FIR marked as Ex.P2, sent the sample bottles to chemical examiner under the letter of advise marked as Ex..P3 and received chemical examiner report marked as Ex.P4. He also admitted that Sub-Inspector, Machavaram present along with staff at that time, but they have not attested Ex.P1 and accused was not present at that time. Further it is not mentioned in .Ex.P1 that P.W.1 was deputed for securing mediators.

14. The evidence of P.W.3 is that he verified the investigation done by P.W.2 and laid charge sheet.

15. So the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 goes to show that though they have visitea the house bearing No.5-07 liquor bottles seized in the said house, accused was nOt present at that time. Further Ex.Pl mediatornama is not SupDorted by the indeperndent 4 witness of P.W.4 and though the Sub-Inspector Machavaram and staff were present at the time of seizure of liquor bottles they ave not attested the same. There is no document filed before the cOurt that the said nOuse is occupied by the accused and he is residing therein. Except the contents of Ex.P] there is evidence on record that the said house belongs to the accused and he is resiaing therein. Under these circumstances the alleged seizure of liquor bottle from the house Dearing No.5-07 is difficult to believe and the same cannot be connected to the accused, P.W.2 himself is defacto complainant and investigating officer in this case and even It is not mentioned in Ex.Pl1 that P.W.1 was deputed for securing mediators. So P.W.*.2 were secured by P.W.1 to the scene of offence as mediators is also difficult to bcve. So in the absence of any evidence that the house bearing No.5-07 belongs to the used and he is residing therein, the said seized liquor bottles belongs to him, the Case of the prosecution against the accused is difficult to believe.

16 Under these circumstances the case of the prosecution is not able to be established against the accused and it is a Tit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. Accused is directed to execute self bond under sec.437-A Cr.P.C to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. Mo.l to

Mo.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 21t day of October, 2016.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS'MAGISTRATE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Defence: For Prosecution:

P.W.1- G. Mariya Dasu, P&E constable, Piduguralla. None PW.2- K. Ravi Kumar, P&E, Sub-Inspector, Piduguralla. P.W.3- P. Nageswara Rao, PSE, Inspector, Piduguralla. P.W.4- Chowdam Venkateswarlu.

Documents Marked

For Defence:

For Prosecution :

None Ex.P1- Mediatornama. Ex.P2- FIR. Ex.P3- Letter of advise.

Ex.P4- Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P5: Signature of P.W.4 on mediatornama

MATERIAL OBIECTS MARKED:

Mo.l: 0ne Mc.Dowell brandy bottle of 180 m. Mo.2: One Old Label whisky bottle of 180 m.

Mo.3: One Satyam Prestige whisky bottle of 180 ml.

Mo.4: One Bag Piper whisky bottle of 180 m,.

JFCM, PDRL

Dt.11.07.2016:

Accused called present:. Heard, the arguments on both sides. Judgment

pronounced (VSJ).

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8(e) of APP Act. Thereby, accused is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled. M.0.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to execute self bond under sec.437-A appear before the appellate Cr.PC to court within six months to answer the appeal if any.

JFCM, PDRL

cc 162/2015

Dt.06.07.2015:

Accused called Judgment present.

pronounced (VSJ).

In the result, Accused is found not quilty for the offence punishable ynder section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Thereby, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and the of Accused bai! bonds shall stands canceled. M.Os 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is directed to execute self bond appear before under sec.437-A Cr.PC to the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any.

JFCM, PbRL