Ms. S. Vani

- 1 -

APSR0E0001692016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGSITRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TEKKALI

Present : Smt.U.Madhuri,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Palasa.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Tekkali

Friday, this the 26 th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No.319/2016.

Between :

The State represented by Station House Officer, Nandigam Police Station. …Complainant.

And :

Pathuri Ravi Kumar, S/o Pothayya, Age 27 yrs, Grameena Dock Sevak, Branch Post Master, Pedda Lavunipalli Village, Nandigam Mandal, N/o Rankini Village, Pathapatnam Mandal.

… Accused-.

This case is coming on 04-07-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P Babu Rao and Sri I Mallesu Counsels for the Accused;and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Nandigam Police Station has filed the charge- sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.65/2015, for the offence under Sections 406, 409 & 420 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows : The offence occurred prior to 19-08-2014 at Perada Lavunipalli Branch Post Office, Nandigam Mandal.

L.W.1/Koda Syamasundararao who is residing at Akkupalli Post, Vajrapukotturu

Mandal.

- 2 -

3.The accused noted supra who is now under suspension was while working as Branch Postmaster, Pedda Lavunipalli Branch Post Office under Venkateswara colony Sub Post Office, Tekkali. Accused received money from RD account holders/depositors/insurants/LWs 5 to 31 and made entries of deposits in their pass books with date stamps and by signing him and failed to credit the Deposit amounts

Rs.19943/- into Post Office Account and misappropriated the deposit amounts. On coming to know the same, LW.2/Surakattula Srikar Babu conducted enquiry. On coming to know the above, initially, LW.4/Borredy Gumpaswamy with the assistance of LW.3/K Bhaskararao conducted verification and apprised the misappropriation of accused to the district Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam.

Later on the directions of District Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam, LW.2 conducted enquiry with the assistance of LW.3 and found that the money for Rs.

19,943/- which was deposited by above depositors and not credited the deposit amounts to post office account and misappropriated the deposit amounts. During his enquiry he recorded the oral statements of LWs 5 to 31 with the help of LW.3, seized Passbooks of LWs 5 to 31, Pay in slips, RD Journal of Peddalavunipalli BO for the period from 1.5.2012 to 2.6.2014 and 30.6.2014 to 16.8.2014, RPLI Journal of Pedalavunipalli BO for the period from 1.8.2005 to 13.8.2014 and BO Account

Book of Pedalavnipalli BO for the period from 1.1.2013 to 31.1.2014 and 1.2.2014 to 21.8.2014 (Sl. No. 1 to 83) and he submitted his report to the Superintendent of

Posts, Srikakulam along with all connected written documents and seized documents. Later the Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam instructed to LW.1 vide their office letter Lr.No.F4-3/14-15, dated 8.7.2015 and on that LW.1 preferred report vide their office Lr.No.F4-3/PLPalli/RD/RPLI/Frauds at TKL the dt.21.7.2015 to LW.32 along with documents Sl. No.1 to 83 including statements related to the enquiry. Basing on the report given by LW.1, LW.32 registered a case vide Cr.No.

65/2015 under section 406, 409 and 420 IPC of Nandigam PS and investigated into.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.32/Ch.Prasad, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Nandigam examined LW.1, recorded his statement and seized documents - 3 - related to the enquiry done by LW.2 from the possession of LW.1. On transfer of

LW.32 and on assuming charge of Nandigam PS by LW.33/V Nagaraju, Sub-

Inspector of Police Nandigam, he continued his investigation and during the course of investigation, LW.33 examined LWs.2 to 31 and recorded their statements.

During the course of investigation, LW.33 arrested the accused on 19.9.2015 and sent him to the Hon'ble Court for remand. At present, the accused is on court bail.

5.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, against the Accused. On production of Accused,

before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1/K

Syamasundara Rao, PW.2/B Kurmayya, PW.3/Kancharana Saraswathi,

PW.4/Pinakana Kantham, PW.5/Bathakala Gowramma, PW.6/Neyyala Mahalaxmi,

PW.7/K Sarojini, PW.8/Chemalla Chinnamma, PW.9/Killi Bharathi, PW.10/K

Ankamma, PW.11/Vanajangi Sumathi, PW.12/Pamu Yerkasamma, PW.13/Lakinena

Applaswamy, PW.14/Boddu Appalamma, PW.15/Hanumanthu Pentayya,

PW.16/Dumpala Kanthamma, PW.17/Bagadi Urmila, PW.18/K Ramanamurthy,

PW.19/Pinakana Anasuya, PW.20/P Laxmunaidu, PW.21/Borredy Gumpaswamy, - 4 -

PW.22/D.Vallayya, PW.23/D Appalanarasamma, PW.24/P Anandkumar,

PW.25/Kinjarapu Madava Rao, PW.26/K Dillamma, PW.27/Surakattula Srikar Babu,

PW.28/Hanumanth Shanmukha Rao, PW.29/Ch.Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police and PW.30/V Nagaraju, Inspector of Police and Ex’s.P1 to P94, Ex.P1: Police

Report, Ex.P2: R.D.Passbook of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P3: Payslip of R.D.Account

No.53777, of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P4: Statement of of LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P5: R.D.Passbook of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P6:

Payslip of R.D.Account No.53892, of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P7: Statement of of

LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P8: R.D.Passbook of

LW.6/B.Kurmayya, Ex.P9: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53421, of LW.6/B.Kurmayya,

Ex.P10: Statement of of LW.6/B.Kurmayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

Ex.P11: R.D.Passbook of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, Ex.P12: Payslip of R.D.Account

No.51344, of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, Ex.P13: Statement of of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P14: R.D.Passbook of LW.8/P.Kanthamma;

Ex.P15: Payslip of R.D.Account No.54687, of LW.8/P.Kanthamma, Ex.P16:

Statement of of LW.8/P.Kanthamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P17:

R.D.Passbook of LW.9/B.Gowramma, Ex.P18: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53609, of

LW.9/B.Gowramma, Ex.P19: Statement of of LW.9/B.Gowramma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P20: R.D.Passbook of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, Ex.P21: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53988, of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, Ex.P22: Statement of of

LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P23: R.D.Passbook of

LW.11/V.Sumathi, Ex.P24: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53119. of LW.11/V.Sumathi,

Ex.P25: Statement of of LW.11/V.Sumathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P26:

R.D.Passbook of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, Ex.P27: Payslip of R.D. Account No.54702, of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, Ex.P28: Statement of of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P29: R.D.Passbook of LW.13/P. Yekasamma, Ex.P30:

Payslip of R.D.Account No.66557 to 66606, of LW.13/P.Yekasamma, Ex.P31:

Statement of of LW.13/P.Yekasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P32:

R.D.Passbook of LW.14/D.Vallayya, Ex.P33: Statement of of LW.14/D.Vallayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P34: R.D.Passbook of LW.15/K.Meenakshi, - 5 -

Ex.P35: Statement of of LW.15/K.Meenakshi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

Ex.P36: R.D.Passbook of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, Ex.P37: Statement of of

LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P38: R.D.Passbook of

LW.17/K.Sarojini, Ex.P39: Statement of of LW.17/K.Sarojini, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P40: R.D.Passbook, No.70332 of LW.16/L. Appalaswamy,

Ex.P41: Statement of of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

Ex.P42: R.D.Passbook of LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma, Ex.P43: Statement of

LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P44:

R.D.PassbookofLW.19/P.AnandaKumar,Ex.P45:Statementof

LW.19/P.AnandaKumar, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P46: R.D.Passbook of

LW.20/B.Appalamma, Ex.P47: Statement of LW.20/B.Appalamma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P48: R.D.Passbook of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao, Ex.P49:

Statement of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P50:

R.D.Passbook of LW.22/H.Pentayya, Ex.P51: Statement of LW.22/H.Pentayya, recordedbytheEnquiryOfficer,Ex.P52:R.D.Passbookof

LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao, Ex.P53: Statement of LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P54: R.D.Passbook of LW.24/K.Dillamma,

Ex.P55: Statement of LW.24/K.Dillamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P56:

R.D.PassbookofLW.25/Ch.Chinnamma,Ex.P57:Statementof

LW.25/Ch.Chinnamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P58: R.D.Passbook of

LW.26/D.Kanthamma, Ex.P59: Statement of LW.26/D.Kanthamma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P60: R.D.Passbook of LW.27/B.Urmila, Ex.P61: Statement of

LW.27/B.Urmila, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P62: RPLI Passbook of

LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy, Ex.P63: Statement of LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P64: RPLI Passbook of LW.29/K.Bharathi, Ex.P65:

Statement of LW.29/K.Bharathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P66: RPLI

Passbook of LW.30/P.Anasuya, Ex.P67: Statement of LW.30/P.Anasuya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P68: RPLI Passbook of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu, Ex.P69:

Statement of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P.70:

Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account - 6 -

No.53777 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.71: Statement of Sri

P.Ravi Kunar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53892 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.72: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused,

dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53421 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass

book, Ex.P.73: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.51344 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.74: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.54687

Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.75: Statement of Sri P.Ravi

Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53609 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.76: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused,

dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53988 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass

book, Ex.P.77: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53119 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.78: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.54702

Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.79: Statement of Sri P.Ravi

Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.66557 to 606 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book; Ex.P.80: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.02, dt.27-03- 2023, Ex.P.81: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.03, dt.27-03-2023, Ex.P.82: 161(3)

Cr.P.C Statement of PW.04, dt.27-03-2023, Ex.P.83: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of

PW.5, dt.27-03-2023, Ex.P.84: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.7, dt.29-03-2023,

Ex.P.85: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.08, dt.29-03-2023, Ex.P.86: 161(3) Cr.P.C

Statement of PW.09, dt.29-03-2023, Ex.P.87: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.10, dt.31-03-2023, Ex.P.88: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.11, dt.31-09-2023, Ex.P.89:

161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.12, dt.31-03-2023, Ex.P.90: 161(3) Cr.P.C

Statement of PW.14, dt.31-03-2023, Ex.P.91: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.15, dt.31-03-2023, Ex.P.92: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.16, dt.31-03-2023, Ex.P.93:

161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.17, dt.31-03-2023 and Ex.P94: 161(3) Cr.P.C

Statement of PW.18, Ex.P.95: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.19, Ex.P.96: 161(3)

Cr.P.C Statement of PW.20, Ex.P.97: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.22, Ex.P.98:

161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.23,Ex.P.99: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.24, - 7 -

Ex.P.100: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.25,Ex.P.101: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of

PW.26,Ex.P.102: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.28 and Ex.P.103: Original FIR, dt.21-07-2015. The remaining witnesses, i.e., LW.3, LW.12 and LW.15 are closed by the Learned APP of the Prosecution.

08.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

09.Heard on both sides and perused the case record

Now, the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 406 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(iii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined L.W.1/K

Syamasundara Rao, who gave report as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1: Police

Report, Ex.P2: R.D.Passbook of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P3: Payslip of R.D.Account

No.53777, of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P4: Statement of of LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P5: R.D.Passbook of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P6:

Payslip of R.D.Account No.53892, of LW.5/K.Ankamma, Ex.P7: Statement of of

LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P8: R.D.Passbook of

LW.6/B.Kurmayya, Ex.P9: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53421, of LW.6/B.Kurmayya,

Ex.P10: Statement of of LW.6/B.Kurmayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P11:

R.D.Passbook of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, Ex.P12: Payslip of R.D.Account No.51344, of - 8 -

LW.7/K.Saraswathi, Ex.P13: Statement of of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P14: R.D.Passbook of LW.8/P.Kanthamma; Ex.P15: Payslip of

R.D.Account No.54687, of LW.8/P.Kanthamma, Ex.P16: Statement of of

LW.8/P.Kanthamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P17: R.D.Passbook of

LW.9/B.Gowramma, Ex.P18: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53609, of

LW.9/B.Gowramma, Ex.P19: Statement of of LW.9/B.Gowramma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P20: R.D.Passbook of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, Ex.P21: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53988, of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, Ex.P22: Statement of of

LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P23: R.D.Passbook of

LW.11/V.Sumathi, Ex.P24: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53119. of LW.11/V.Sumathi,

Ex.P25: Statement of of LW.11/V.Sumathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P26:

R.D.Passbook of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, Ex.P27: Payslip of R.D. Account No.54702, of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, Ex.P28: Statement of of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P29: R.D.Passbook of LW.13/P. Yekasamma, Ex.P30:

Payslip of R.D.Account No.66557 to 66606, of LW.13/P.Yekasamma, Ex.P31:

Statement of of LW.13/P.Yekasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P32:

R.D.Passbook of LW.14/D.Vallayya, Ex.P33: Statement of of LW.14/D.Vallayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P34: R.D.Passbook of LW.15/K.Meenakshi,

Ex.P35: Statement of of LW.15/K.Meenakshi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

Ex.P36: R.D.Passbook of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, Ex.P37: Statement of of

LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P38: R.D.Passbook of

LW.17/K.Sarojini, Ex.P39: Statement of of LW.17/K.Sarojini, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P40: R.D.Passbook, No.70332 of LW.16/L. Appalaswamy,

Ex.P41: Statement of of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer,

Ex.P42: R.D.Passbook of LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma, Ex.P43: Statement of

LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P44:

R.D.PassbookofLW.19/P.AnandaKumar,Ex.P45:Statementof

LW.19/P.AnandaKumar, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P46: R.D.Passbook of

LW.20/B.Appalamma, Ex.P47: Statement of LW.20/B.Appalamma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P48: R.D.Passbook of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao, Ex.P49:

- 9 -

Statement of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P50:

R.D.Passbook of LW.22/H.Pentayya, Ex.P51: Statement of LW.22/H.Pentayya, recordedbytheEnquiryOfficer,Ex.P52:R.D.Passbookof

LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao, Ex.P53: Statement of LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P54: R.D.Passbook of LW.24/K.Dillamma,

Ex.P55: Statement of LW.24/K.Dillamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P56:

R.D.PassbookofLW.25/Ch.Chinnamma,Ex.P57:Statementof

LW.25/Ch.Chinnamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P58: R.D.Passbook of

LW.26/D.Kanthamma, Ex.P59: Statement of LW.26/D.Kanthamma, recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, Ex.P60: R.D.Passbook of LW.27/B.Urmila, Ex.P61: Statement of

LW.27/B.Urmila, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P62: RPLI Passbook of

LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy, Ex.P63: Statement of LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P64: RPLI Passbook of LW.29/K.Bharathi, Ex.P65:

Statement of LW.29/K.Bharathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P66: RPLI

Passbook of LW.30/P.Anasuya, Ex.P67: Statement of LW.30/P.Anasuya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P68: RPLI Passbook of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu, Ex.P69:

Statement of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P.70:

Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account

No.53777 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.71: Statement of Sri

P.Ravi Kunar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53892 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.72: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused,

dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53421 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass

book, Ex.P.73: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.51344 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.74: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.54687

Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.75: Statement of Sri P.Ravi

Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53609 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.76: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused,

dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.53988 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass

book, Ex.P.77: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the - 10 - account No.53119 Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.78: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.54702

Pertaining to Recurring Deposit pass book, Ex.P.79: Statement of Sri P.Ravi

Kumar/accused, dated:02-09-2014 for the account No.66557 to 606 Pertaining to

Recurring Deposit pass book; L.W.2 S.Srikar Babu who conducted preliminary investigation report as P.W.27, L.W.4/Borreddy Gumpaswamy who conducted enquiry as P.W.21, L.W.5/K.Ankamma as P.W.10 and got marked her Sec.161

Cr.PC statement as Ex.P77, L.W.6/B.Kurmayya as P.W.2 and got marked his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.70, L.W7/K.Saraswathi as P.W.3 and got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P71, L.W.8/P.Kantham as P.W.4 and got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P72, L.W.9/Kathakala Gowramma as P.W.5 and got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P73,

L.W.10/N.Mahalaxmi as P.W.6, L.W.11/V.Sumathi is examined as P.W.11 and got marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P78, L.W.13 is examined as P.W.12 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P79, L.W.14 as P.W.22 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P88, L.W.16 is examined as P.W.13,

L.W.17 as P.W.7 and got marked his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P75, L.W.18 as P.W.23 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P89. L.W.19/P.Ananda

Kumar is examined as P.W.24 and got marked Ex.P90, L.W.20/B.Appalamma as

P.W.14 and got marked Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P80,

L.W.21/K.Madavarao is examined as P.W.25 and got marked Sectuib 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P91, L.W.22/Hanumanthu Pentayya as P.W.15 and got marked

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P81, L.W.23/H.Shanmukharao as P.W.28 and got marked Sec,.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P93, L.W.24/K.Dillemma is examined as

P.W.26 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.92,

L.W.25/Ch.Chinnamma as P.W.8 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as

Ex.P.75, L.W.26/D.Kanthamma is examined as P.W.16 and got marked Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P82, L.W.27/B.Urmila as P.W.17 and got marked Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P83. L.W.28/K.Ramanamurthy as P.W.18 and got marked

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.84, L.W.29/K.Bharathi as P.W.9 and got marked - 11 -

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P76, L.W.30/P.Anasuya as P.W.19 and got marked

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P85, L.W.31/P.Laxmunaidu as P.W.20 and got marked Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.86, L.W.32/Ch.Prasad, SI of Police who registered the case in Cr.No.65/2015 is examined as P.W.29 and got marked the original FIR as Ex.P94 and L.W.33/V.Nagaraju, SI of Police, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet as P.W.30. The learned APP submitted that by examining Pws.1 to 30 coupled with Exs.P1 to P103, the prosecution has well established the case against the accused and prayed to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

11.Learned counsel for accused argued that to attract the ingredients under

Sec.406 and 409 there must be entrustment, but the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is entrusted with the work of receiving of deposits from the customers. It is also argued by the learned counsel for accused that there is no FSL report filed before the court to connect the accused with the present case and that the all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. It is also argued by the learned cousel for accused that the P.Ws.21 clearly stated that he has conducted enquiry and verified 20 recurring deposit pass books and identified that the accused did not credit Rs.8,500/- of depositors to their respective accounts through pass books and he also verified seven saving bank pass books and observed that the accused did not credit Rs.11,930/- to the accounts of the respective customers. But no such account books were submitted

before the court. P.W1, 21 and 27 clearly deposed that there is no appointment

letter or office order given by the complainant to them to show that the accused was entrusted with the said duty. There is no evidence, to connect the accused for the said alleged prosecution case.

12. Now the Court will scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to prove the case of

prosecution?

P.W.1 deposed that additional incharge of P.W.27 and at the instructions of - 12 -

Superintendent of Post of Srikakulam Divison, he lodged complaint before the police. P.W.21 deposed that he has conducted enquiry and verified 20 recurring deposit pass books and identified that the accused did not credit Rs.8,500/- of depositors to their respective accounts through pass books and he also verified seven saving bank pass books and observed that the accused did not credit

Rs.11,930/- to the accounts of the respective customers and he gave report to the

Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam. P.W.27 deposed that he received preliminary investigation report from P.W.21 and conducted further investigation and submitted his final report to the Superintendent of Post of Srikakulam Division who is the disciplinary authority in which there was a misappropriation to the tune of

Rs.19,743/-. Lateron P.W.1 gave report to the police and handed over the connected documents to the police.

13.Upon perusal of the Ex.P1 report the P.W.21 verified the accounts of

K.Ankamma, B.Kurmayya, K.Saraswathi, P.Kanthamma, B.Gowramma,

N.Mahalakshmi, V.Sumati, P.Chandrayya, P.Yakasamma and they gave statements

before P.W.27 that they have paid the amounts to the Branch Postmaster and the

same were made entry in their respective pass books duly stamped and signed by the Branch Post Master and the accused gave statement before P.W.27 that he received the said deposit amounts from the depositors and thesaid amount was not accounted for into Post Office Accounts.

14.Sec.409 reads as follows:

Whoever being any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits crimiknial breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

15.In order to establish the prosecution case against the accused that he being the branch postmaster, Pedalavunipalli, received the deposit amount from the said - 13 - depositors and misappropriated the said amount without accounted for into Post office accounts, the prosecution examined the said depositors as P.Ws.2 to 6, 10 to 12 and got marked the statements of the depositors along with their RD pass books vide Exs.P2 to 69. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6, 10 to 12, except P.W.6, all the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

16.Now coming to the evidence of P.W.6. Upon perusal of the evidence of

P.W.6, it can be seen that he paid Rs.300/- per month to Peddalavunipalli post office of Nandigam Mandal till 2015 and he lost Rs.600/- in the case even though he paid the amount to the postal authorities. During cross examination, he deposed that he sent the money to her husband’s brother by name Neyyala Prakash for depositing in the post office, she has no personal knowledge regarding whether the said Neyyala Prakash deposited money in the post office. From the evidence of

P.W.6, it cannot be said that whether the said Neyyala Praikash deposited the amount into post office.

17.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused made entry into the depositor’s pass book duly date stamped and signed and P.W.21 recorded the statement of accused vide Exs.P70 to P79, in which the accused admitted that he received the deposit amounts from the customers and not accounted for amounts into the post office account.

18Sec.406 of IPC, reads as follows :

Section 406 : Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The ingredients to attract the offence punishable U/Sec.406 of IPC are :

i)Entrustment : the accused must have been entruested with the property or dominion over it. This can include clerks, servants, business officials, agents or any other person holding a position of trust ii)Dishonest misappropriation : the accused must have dishoestly - 14 - misappropriated the property or used or diposose of it, in violation of trust.

iii)Intention : The act of committing criminal breach of trust must be done intentionally and not by accident or co-incidence.

iv) Violation of Law : The accused must have violated any direction of Law or illegal contract that prescribes how the trust is to be discharged.

v) Detrimental to the entrusting person : The accused misused of the property must be to the detriment of the interest of the person entrusting it.

19.In the present case, it can be seen from the evidnece of P.W.30/investigating officer that in order to establish that the signature on the said deposit pass books is that of the accused, P.W.30 sent the hand writings of the accused along with sample signatures to the FSL on 18.11.2015 through the Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Tekkali and he received the said FSL report. But upon perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it can be seen that the said FSL report was not produced before the court.

20.Section 420 of IPC, reads as follows :

“Section 420 : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property : –

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonesty induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

21.In order to attract the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, the following ingredients, i.e.,

i)Deception : intentionally leading someone payable something, that is not true.

ii)Dishonest Inducement : The act done with the intention to cause wrongful - 15 - gain or wrongful loss of the property.

iii)Mens Rea : The dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making inducement.

22.In a case between “Mariam Fasihuddin and another Vs. State represented by Adugodi P.S. and another in which it is hled that “while prosecuting a person for the offence of cheating punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, 1860, it is to be seen : whether the deceitful act of cheating was coupled with an inducement leading to the parting of any property by the complainant. The

Honble Apex Court while reversing the findings of the Hon’ble High Court, and

learned trial court observed that to constitute the offence of cheating merely committing a deceitful act is not sufficient, unless the deceitful act dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, thereby resulting any loss or damage to the person.

23.In the present case, upon perusal of other prosecution witnesses who are the depositors, all are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution except P.W.13. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, it can be seen that he is hearsay witness and he clearly deposed that he did not loose any money. Upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, it can be seen that the prosecution failed to produce the FSL report to show that the accused received the amounts from the depositors to a tune of Rs.19,743/- and duly stamped and signed in the pass books of depositors in respect of the said deposits and misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,743/-. In view of above discussion, the court is the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.406, 409 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall be in - 16 - force for a period of six months, as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 26 th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-Smt. U.Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC/Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence : PW.1 : K Syamasundara Rao - None - PW.2: B Kurmayya PW.3: Kancharana Saraswathi PW.4: Pinakana Kantham PW.5: Bathakala Gowramma PW.6: Neyyala Mahalaxmi PW.7: K Sarojini PW.8: Chemalla Chinnamma PW.9: Killi Bharathi PW.10: K Ankamma PW.11: Anajangi Sumathi PW.12: Pamu Yerkasamma PW.13: Lakinena Applaswamy PW.14: Boddu Appalamma PW.15: Hanumanthu Pentayya PW.16: Dumpala Kanthamma PW.17: Bagadi Urmila PW.18: K Ramanamurthy PW.19: Pinakana Anasuya PW.20: P Laxmunaidu PW.21: Borredy Gumpaswamy PW.22: D.Vallayya PW.23: D Appalanarasamma PW.24: P Anandkumar - 17 -

PW.25: Kinjarapu Madava Rao PW.26: K Dillamma PW.27: Surakattula Srikar Babu PW.28: Hanumanth Shanmukha Rao PW.29: Ch.Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police PW.30: V Nagaraju, Inspector of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1: Police Report Ex.P2: R.D.Pass book of LW.5/K.Ankamma Ex.P3: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53777, of LW.5/K.Ankamma Ex.P4: Statement of of LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P5: R.D.Passbook of LW.5/K.Ankamma Ex.P6: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53892, of LW.5/K.Ankamma Ex.P7: Statement of of LW.5/K.Ankamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P8: R.D.Passbook of LW.6/B.Kurmayya Ex.P9: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53421, of LW.6/B.Kurmayya Ex.P10: Statement of of LW.6/B.Kurmayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P11: R.D.Passbook of LW.7/K.Saraswathi Ex.P12: Payslip of R.D.Account No.51344, of LW.7/K.Saraswathi Ex.P13: Statement of of LW.7/K.Saraswathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P14: R.D.Passbook of LW.8/P.Kanthamma Ex.P15: Payslip of R.D.Account No.54687, of LW.8/P.Kanthamma Ex.P16: Statement of of LW.8/P.Kanthamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P17: R.D.Passbook of LW.9/B.Gowramma Ex.P18: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53609, of LW.9/B.Gowramma Ex.P19: Statement of of LW.9/B.Gowramma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P20: R.D.Passbook of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi Ex.P21: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53988, of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi Ex.P22: Statement of of LW.10/N.Mahalakshmi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P23: R.D.Passbook of LW.11/V.Sumathi Ex.P24: Payslip of R.D.Account No.53119. of LW.11/V.Sumathi Ex.P25: Statement of of LW.11/V.Sumathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P26: R.D.Passbook of LW.12/P.Chandrayya Ex.P27: Payslip of R.D. Account No.54702, of LW.12/P.Chandrayya Ex.P28: Statement of of LW.12/P.Chandrayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P29: R.D.Passbook of LW.13/P. Yekasamma Ex.P30: Payslip of R.D.Account No.66557 to 66606, of LW.13/P.Yekasamma Ex.P31: Statement of of LW.13/P.Yekasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer - 18 -

Ex.P32: R.D.Passbook of LW.14/D.Vallayya Ex.P33: Statement of of LW.14/D.Vallayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P34: R.D.Passbook of LW.15/K.Meenakshi Ex.P35: Statement of of LW.15/K.Meenakshi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P36: R.D.Passbook of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy Ex.P37: Statement of of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P38: R.D.Passbook of LW.17/K.Sarojini Ex.P39: Statement of of LW.17/K.Sarojini, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P40: R.D.Passbook, No.70332 of LW.16/L. Appalaswamy Ex.P41: Statement of of LW.16/L.Appalaswamy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P42: R.D.Passbook of LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma Ex.P43: Statement of LW.18/D.Appalanarasamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P44: R.D.Passbook of LW.19/P.AnandaKumar Ex.P45: Statement of LW.19/P.AnandaKumar, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P46: R.D.Passbook of LW.20/B.Appalamma, Ex.P47: Statement of LW.20/B.Appalamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P48: R.D.Passbook of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao Ex.P49: Statement of LW.21/K.MadhavaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P50: R.D.Passbook of LW.22/H.Pentayya Ex.P51: Statement of LW.22/H.Pentayya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P52: R.D.Passbook of LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao Ex.P53: Statement of LW.23/H.ShanmukhaRao, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P54: R.D.Passbook of LW.24/K.Dillamma Ex.P55: Statement of LW.24/K.Dillamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Ex.P56: R.D.Passbook of LW.25/Ch.Chinnamma Ex.P57: Statement of LW.25/Ch.Chinnamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P58: R.D.Passbook of LW.26/D.Kanthamma Ex.P59: Statement of LW.26/D.Kanthamma, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P60: R.D.Passbook of LW.27/B.Urmila Ex.P61: Statement of LW.27/B.Urmila, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P62: RPLI Passbook of LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy Ex.P63: Statement of LW.28/K.Ramana Murthy, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P64: RPLI Passbook of LW.29/K.Bharathi Ex.P65: Statement of LW.29/K.Bharathi, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P66: RPLI Passbook of LW.30/P.Anasuya Ex.P67: Statement of LW.30/P.Anasuya, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P68: RPLI Passbook of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu Ex.P69: Statement of LW.31/P.Lakshmu Naidu, recorded by the Enquiry Officer Ex.P.70: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kumar.

- 19 -

Ex.P.71: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.72: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.73: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.74: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.75: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.76: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.77: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.78: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.79: Statement of Sri P.Ravi Kunar Ex.P.80: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2. Ex.P.81: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3, Ex.P.82: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4, Ex.P.83: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5, Ex.P.84: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.7, Ex.P.85: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.8, Ex.P.86: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.9, Ex.P.87: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.10, Ex.P.88: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.11, Ex.P.89: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.12, Ex.P.90: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.14, Ex.P.91: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.15, Ex.P.92: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.16, Ex.P.93: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.17, Ex.P94: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.18 Ex.P.95: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.19 Ex.P.96: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.20 EX.P.97: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.22 Ex.P.98: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.23 Ex.P.99: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.24 Ex.P.100: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.25 Ex.P.101: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.26 Ex.P.102: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.28 Ex.P.103: FIR/ P.W.29. For Defence: - None -

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence: - Nil -

Sd/-Smt. U.Madhuri

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa,FAC/Palasa

Calendar and Judgment District : Srikakulam Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kotabommali

06.07.2020 Date of offence

Date of report or complaint 06.07.2020

Date of apprehension of accused 07.07.2020

07.07.2020 Date of release on bail Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Notice Date of commencement of trial 02.04.2024

Date of closure of trial 30.')7.2025

Date of Judgment 07.10.2025

Explanation for delay and remarks Due to non-productio, , of witnesses b} he prosecution from time to time.

and Judgmen_t in 136 OF On the file of the Judicial Calendar 2 1)2 i) Magistrate of the first Class, C.C.No. Kotabommali Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station. Father's SI. Name of the Age Name Religion Calling Residence Manda! accused /Husband's No Name Surya Hindu "' Panchayat Kameswar Narasannapeta Challa 37 ;;:;, 1 Narayana Secretary apeta Ramesh

Offence: Under Section 353 of the IPC: Assaults or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty.

Under Section 506 of the IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Finding: Found not guilty 2

Result: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as required under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Since no property is produced in this case, no order passed to that affect.

Judicial Magi ~t Class,

Narasannapeta. (FAC) Kotabommali.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Superintendent of Police of Srikakulam.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI

Present: Ms.S.VANI,

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class ,

Narasannapeta

(FAC) Kotabommali

Tuesday, this the Oih day of October, 2025

C.C.NO.136 OF 2020

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station .

... Complainant.

AND

Challa Ramesh, S/o Surya Narayana, aged 37 years, Kameswarapeta village, Narasannapeta Manda!, workin gas Panchayat Secretary, Andhavaram Panchayat, Jalumuru Manda!.

... Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 07.10.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch. Venkatarao, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station laid charge sheet in Crime No.203/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('for the short of IPC') against the accused.

2. HISTORY OF PROSECUTION'S CASE:

PW1/Balaga Surya Prakasarao has been working as Administration Officer in Office of MPDO at Jalumuru since 22.07.2019. Whereas the accused

4

namely Challa Ramesh, who is working as Panchayat Secretary of Andhavaram Panchat of Jalumuru Mandal, who have been gotten a disobedience actions against him by then officers due to irregular attendance of duties, as a result his salary was stopped. In this connection he made an appeal to the higher officers for sanctioning of salary, in order to get half of the salary by installments system.

Despite this, he used to go office in inebriated state and made uproar in front of officers. According to the direct witnesses, on 06.07.2020 at about 15:30 hours, he went to office in inebriated state got scuffle with Administration Officer regarding his salary and abused as well as de_terred him while he was discharging his duties and also made a threaten to him with dire-consequences by the accused. To that affect

PW.1 gave a report.

3. INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE SHEET:

Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.8/G. Mojeswara Rao, Head- constable of Jalumuru Police Station registered the case in crime number 203/2020 under sections 353 and 506 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.8 examined many as 07 witnesses, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of PW1. On 07.07.2020, he section 41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused and also obtained written explanation on 10.07.2020. On 20.07.2020, as part of investigation LW9/Y. ·Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station took up investigation from the PW.8 and verified the entire investigation donw by him and found it in correct lines. After completion of investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereby the accused is liable for punishment under the above Sections of law.

4. COGNIZANCE:

This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 506 of IPC against the accused.

5

COMPLIANCE OF SECTION - 207 Cr.P.C:

In pursuant to the court's process, the accused appeared before the court and Copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused in accordance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. EXAMINATION & CHARGE:

The accused was examined under Section of 251 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and the substance of accusation for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were explained to the accused in his known language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

7.

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: To prove its case and discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon it, the prosecution examined Eight (08) witnesses, i.e., PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to PS as indicated in ttie appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW9/Y.

Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station is given up by Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

8. Statement of Defence:

After cessation of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1 )(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each and every incriminating circumstance found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused is separately read over to the accused. The accused denied all such circumstances as false and did not choose to adduce defense evidence.

9. ARGUMENTS:

I have heard arguments of both sides, gone through the case record in the backdrop of evidences presented before this court by prosecution side.

6

10. Arguments advanced by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

Dunng the course of the arguments, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State addressed arguments and submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state also submitted that the prosecution successfully proved the ingredients of the offence under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal code and so the accused :s liable for conviction. Hence, she prayed the Honourable court to convict the accused

11. Arguments advanced by Defence Counsel:

Per contra Learned Defence counsel contended that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and the accused is falsely implicated in this case due to office politics and the learned counsel for the accused further submitted that PW.1 filed this case against the accused only to harass him. He again submitted that PW.2, PW.4 to PW. 7 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the only supporting witness PW.3 is also not a direct witness to the incident and the investigating officer did table investigation in this case and he failed to collect any documents why the salary of the accused was stopped and there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case against the accused, hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

7

12. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE

ARE :

1) "Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06.07.2020 at about 15:30 hours at M.D.O office of Jamuluru village and Manda! the accused assaults or uses · criminal force to PW.1, being a public servant in the execution of his duty with an intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code?"

2) "Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, same time and same place the accused threatened the PW.1/Balaga Sur']a Prakash Rao with dire consequences and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?"

3) "What order?"

13. My answer to the above points are as under. Point No -1 : In the Negative Point No-2: In the Negative Point No-3: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

14. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND THE REASONS THEREOF:

It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all rea.sonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.

8

15. POINT NO. 1 and 2:

These points are taken up together for common discussion since they are interrelated with reference to the nature of the offence committed by the accused.

16. To prove the guilt under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove:-

a) That the public servant must have been assaulted or criminal force must have been used against him.

b) That the assault or criminal force must have been used while he was legally discharging his duties.

c) That there must be an intention to deter or prevent him from discharging his duties.

To prove the guilt under section 506 of the IPC, the offence of intimidation has to be considered under section 503 of Indian Penal Code. The ingredients which are required to be proved are:

a) Threatening with injury to 11is person, reputation or property;

b) With intention to cause alarm to cause anything which the person is not legally bound to do or omit to do anything which the person is legally entitled to do.

17. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2020 at about 15:30 hours, the accused deterred the PW.1 from discharging his official duties by using assault and criminal force and also threatened with dire consequences thereby he committed an offence Under Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Whereas the case of the defense is total denial.

18. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that on 06.07.2020 PW.1 had been discharging his legitimate duties and 9

(@

at about 3.30 pm., while he was In M.P.D.O office of Jalumuru village and Mandal, the accused obstructed his legitimate duties and also threatened him with dire consequences 19 . In order to establish the case, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 Out of them, PW.1 is the victim and de-facto complainant, PWs. 2 to 7 are said to be direct witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.8 is the Investigating Officer. It Is the evidence of PW.1 that on 06.07.2020 in between 3:00 to 4 00 p.m., the accused came to MPDO office in drunken state and abused the

PW 1 and deterred him from functioning his official duties and threatened to see his end and thrown him from his chair and he also abused MPDO in front of all the office staff for stopping his salary for f0ur years and to that affect PW.1 gave a report. The witness PW.3 also deposed in the similar lines of PW.1.

20. Pws.2, 4 to 7 are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. In their evidence they deposed that they do not know anything about this case. It is their further version that police not examined them. Pws.2, 4 to 7 are turned hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prose·cutor with the permission of the Court declared

Pws.2, 4 to 7 as hostile and cross-examined them at length. In the cross- examination, they denied that they have stated before the police as in Exs.P2 to P6 i.e., section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Statements. lnspite of lengthy cross- examination of Pws.2, 4 to 7 nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution case. From the beginning, the prosecution is harping upon the evidence of Pws.2, 4 to 7 by stating that they are the direct witnesses to the alleged incident and in their presence the accused obstructed the legitimate duties of PW.1 and also caused and abused him in filthy language. Surprisingly, Pws.2, 4 to 7 who are none other than the independent witnesses expressed their ignorance about the prosecution case. They turned hostile and gave big blow to the version of PW.1 and PW.3. In their evidence they did not depose that accused obstructed the legitimate duties of

PW.1 and PW.3 and also abused them in filthy language. In spite of lengthy cross

¾fivk

10 examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution case.

21. Now we are left with the testimony of PW.1 and PW.3 The entire case of prosecution rests on the testimony of PW.1 and PW.3. As already noticed,

Pws.2, 4 to 7 did not support the version of PW.1. There is no single whisper in the evidence of Pws.2, 4 to 7 that accused obstructed the legitimate duties of PW.1 and

PW.3 and also abused them in filthy language. Except the testimony of PW.1 and

PW.3, there is no independent corroboration to show that accused obstructed PW.1 and PW.3 from discharging their officials duties and abused them in filthy language.

Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused deterred the PW.1 and PW.3 from the dischargi17g their duties. The witnesses PW.1 and PW.3 improved their version for the first time before this court during their chief examination that the accused deterred the PW.1 and PW.3 from discharging their duties. During the cross examination, the PW.1 testified that PW.3 accompanied him while giving report whereas the Investigating officer PW.8 testified that no one accompanied PW.1 to police station. The evidence of PW.3 is silent in that regard.

It is the defence of the accused that on that particular day the PW.1 is not the AO of MPDO office and one Komarapu is Administrative officer of MPDO office and also PW.3 is working as EO PRO during that period. Whereas the prosecution vehemently argued that the PW.3 is in-charge MPDO on that particular day, but the prosecution miserably failed to file any documents to that affect. The investigating officer/PW.8 did not collect any documents that for that particular the PW.1 and

PW.3 are working as AO and in-charge MPDO respectively. The prosecution even failed to collect Identity Cards of the PW.1 and PW.3 to prove that they are public servants. Except self serving statements of PW.1 and PW.3, there is nothing on record to believe the testimony of PW.1 and PW.3 that on the date of offene the

PW.1 and PW.3 present in MPDO office, Jalumuru. The Investigating Officer did not collect any piece of paper to show that PW.1 and PW.3 were discharging their official duties on the date of occurrence. In the absence of any positive evidence, it 5· 11 is highly difficult to believe the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 that they were discharging their official duties on the date of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also failed to seize any documentary evidence from the higher officials of PW.3 that he was placed in-charge of MPDO office, Jalumuru on that particular day. Furthermore, Pws.2, 4 to 7 who are direct witnesses to the alleged incident turned hostile and gave big blow to the prosecution case. The evidence of Pws.2, 4 to 7 shattered the prosecution case irreparably. The remaining evidence available in this case is evidence of PW.8, who is investigation officer but his evidence is nothing but sequence of investigation done by him. It appears from the evidence of PW.8, the investigating officer did table investigation in this case as claimed by the defence counsel only in order to support PW.1 and PW.3, due to political influence. Hence, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused.

22. In this case, As stated earlier, except the self serving statements of of

PW.1 and PW.3, there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that PW.1 and

PW.3 were discharging their official duties on the date of incident and accused obstructed his legitimate duties in drunken state and abused them in filthy language. Therefore, this court is unable to appreciate what prompted PW.1 to file this case against the accused. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 found to be tainted because of lack of corroboration to their evidence. Thus, it can be safely concluded that Ex.P1 was falsely attended to. On the other hand, I do not find any ring of truth in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. Therefore, no implicit of reliance can be placed in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. The Investigating Officer PW.8 simply registered the case against the accused without collecting concrete evidence. He also failed to collect any iota of evidence showing that PW.1 and PW.3 were performing official duties on the alleged date of incident. Thus, the prosecution failed to satisfy that PW.1 and PW.3 performing official duties on 06.07.2020 at

3.30 p.m. As discussed above, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 are covered with shadow of doubt and such being the case their evidence cannot be considered.

~.lt

12

There is no acceptable material before the Court to show that the accused committed the offence under Sections 353 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the a~cused for the offences punishable under Section · d · f vour 353 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the point No.1 Is answere in a of the accused and against the prosecution.

23. In so far the offence U/Sec.506 IPC is concerned, the PW.1 nowhere stated that the accused committed any act of criminal intimidation against him. He nowhere stated that the accused threatened him to cause any injury within the meaning of Sec.503 IPC. As already discussed in preceding paras of this judgment the witnesses PW.2, 4 to 7, who are said to be eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove· the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. The accused had not caused the informant to do anything which is illegal or act of omitting anything which is legal. The law is quite explicit that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under section 506 only when the said threats cause alarm to the person to whom they are issued. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not sufficient to bring the application of section 506 of IPC. The allegations of the informant, as find reflection in the evidence, are only that the accused abused him and issued threats. There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the informant. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to the alarm to the victim in consequent to the alleged threats the offence under section 506 of IPC is not constituted. Prosecution has totally failed to prove the essential ingredients of intimidation. Firstly the deterring to do his lawful duties was not proved beyond all the reasonable doubt secondly the act of committing to do anything illegal or omit him from doing anything legal has not been proved. Merely making a general statement will not take the guilt of the accused to home. Therefore, I hold that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be considered to uphold the case of prosecution against the accused for the offence U/Sec.506 IPC also.

G

13

24. Under the said observation now it is necessary to conclude that whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the allegation made against the accused. As it is stated above there is no material in the entire evidence of prosecution against the accused attracting the offence under section 353 and 506 of IPC. As I have above mentioned there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 with the evidence of PW.3 and this aspect leads to suspect the trust worthiness of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. The submission of Learned Counsel

for accused as to lodging false complaint, cannot be ruled out. Under these

circumstances, looking into the matter from any angle, this Court observed that all the circumstances are not pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Further, this ---:. court comes to the clear conclusion that under. these circumstances, it is not safe and proper to convict the accused relying on the evidence of PW.1 to 8 for the alleged offences. On careful appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution it has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt about the allegation made against the accused. Consequently, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent, the burden lie~ on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This_ general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that "while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, 14

onderance of

the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere prep .

probab1/tty' ' In Vijayee Singh v. State of u.P ., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that "in cnmmal cases , the burden is always is on prosecution and never

shifts"

In view of the above evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion 26. that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. My discussion above propels me to decide the point for determination in negative. Accordingly the accused is held not guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code .

POINT No.3:- 27. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255('i) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as required under

Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no property is produced in this case, no order passed to that affect.

File be consigned to Record Room after its due compliance. 28.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07 th day of October, 2025.

Judicial Magist ~~k. ss,

Narasannapeta. (FAC) Kotabommali.

15

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW 1. Balaga Surya Prakasarao ---None--- PW 2 Pinninti Apparao PW.3. Gavara Syamala Kumari PW 4. Sampathirao Malleswara Rao PW.5: Tarra Sabbi Naidu PW.6: Patta Someswara Rao PW.7: Duppala Jagannadham PW.8: G. Mojeswara Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Report dated 06.07.2020. Ex.P.2: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P.3: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P\N3 Ex.P.4: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P.5: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PWS Ex.P.6: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P.7: First Information Report Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch of scene of offence

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

-Nil-

-- Nil ---

Judicial Ma ~lrt Class

'

Narasannapeta. (FAC) Kotabommali.

1

APSR0C0004942026

District : Srikakulam

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Date of offence14.10.2025

Date of report or complaint14.10.2025

Date of apprehension of accused14.10.2025 14.10.2025 Date of release on bail 35 (3) B.N.S.S. Notice

Date of commencement of trial04-05-2026

Date of closure of trial05-05-2026

Date of Judgment18-05-2026

No delay, because the case is disposed off Explanation for delay and remarkswithin 90 days from the date of cognizance i.e., on 26-03-2026.

98 On the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Calendar and Judgment inOF the first Class, Narasannapeta. C.C.No.2026

Complainant : The State represented by Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasannapeta in Crime No.136/2025 u/Sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

Name of the accused, Fat./Hus. name, Aged, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal

Lenka Srinivasa Rao, S/o (Late) Suryarao, age 46 years, R/o Kottapeta, Madapam village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Offence: under Section 34(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2023: imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

2

Finding: Not guilty.

Result:The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.29/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.18 15:09:08 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Srikakulam.

// True Copy//

Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.18 15:09:43 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

APSR0C0004942026 3

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Ms. S. Vani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.98 of 2026

(Cr. No.136/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta)

Between:

The State represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta. …. Complainant And :

Lenka Srinivasa Rao, S/o (Late) Suryarao, age 46 years, R/o Kottapeta, Madapam village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...... Accused

This case is coming before me i.e., on 18-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri P. Anandarao, Learned Advocate for accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise Station, Narasannapeta police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.136/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968.

4

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 14.10.2025 at about 11:20 hours, PW.1-S. Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-G. Appanna and Lw.2-N.

Mukundarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to

Devadi village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands. Immediately PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to secure mediators PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '08' bottles of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '08' bottles. Then

PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the

Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.136/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the Chemical

Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T.

Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

5

3. Cognizance:

The Charge Sheet was taken on file U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 against accused.

4. Compliance of section – 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023:

On the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.230 of B.N.S.S.

5. Examination and charge:

The accused was examined U/Sec.262 of B.N.S.S. The charge under

Section 263 of B.N.S.S was framed for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 and was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6. Evidence adduced by prosecution:

During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides M.O.1 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

Ex.P1 is the Occurrence report, Ex.P2 is the Original F.I.R, Ex.P3 is the Letter of advise and Ex.P4 is the Analysis Report, M.O.1 is the 180 ml sample bottle of

Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey.

7. Statement of Defence:

After cessation of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined u/Sec.351(1)(b) of B.N.S.S. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in 6 the evidence of the prosecution against the accused is separately read over to the accused. The accused denied all such circumstances as false. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence and submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case.

8. ARGUMENTS:

I have heard the rival submissions by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for state and by Learned counsel for accused and gone through the case record in the backdrop of evidences presented before this court by the prosecution side.

9. Arguments advanced by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

During the course of the arguments, Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

10. Arguments advanced by Defence Counsel:

Per contra Learned Defence counsel contended that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and the accused falsely implicated in this case.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused was found in

7

possession of illicit liquor and transporting/

manufacturing/selling the same without obtaining any

valid license or permit and thereby accused has

committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act,

2023?”

12. POINT:-

I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was found in illegal possession of '08' liquor bottles which is in contravention of Section 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023.

13.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused by stating that PW.1 registered the false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14.Admittedly PW.1 is a Police official and there are no independent mediators secured by PW.1 in this case. The evidence available on the record is the evidence of PW.1, who happened to be Excise Sub-Inspector of police. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 14.10.2025 at about 11:20 hours, PW.1-S.

Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-G.

Appanna and Lw.2-N. Mukundarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to Devadi village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands.

Immediately PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to 8 secure mediators PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '08' bottles of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '08' bottles. Then PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.136/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of

A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical

Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T. Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

15.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand but he did not issue any written notices to secure mediators and so he cannot say the names of the persons whom he approached to act as mediators in this case. It is also his evidence that Devadi village is having Sachivalayam, VRO, VRA, Surpanch and

MPTC members. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of accused, did not arrest the accused while he was alleged possession of liquor bottles and foisted a false case against the accused only for statistical purpose.

9 16.As seen from the record, except the interested testimony of PW.1, who is Police Official, there is no independent evidence available on record. Moreover, the entire case is based on Ex.P1/Occurrence report. Admittedly, no mediators were present who witnessed search and seizure. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite evident that PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated under section 103(4) B.N.S.S during the search and seizure. Admittedly, no summons were served on the revenue officials calling them to act as mediators. If the fact that his efforts to secure the mediators were went in vain is true, what prevented the PW.1 to take appropriate legal action against the persons refused to assist him. PW.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. It is expedient to have a glance on Sec. 103(4) of

B.N.S.S for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S reads as follows: Before making a search under

this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two

or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the

place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of

the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to

attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or

any of them so to do...”. As per the Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S, when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials have to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand and Devadi village is having VRO, VRA,

Surpanch and MPTC members but PW.1 did not try to secure any government servants or villagers as mediators and PW.1 did not issue any written notices to any person to act as mediators.

10 17.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer. It is a settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. As referred to in the above provision, the police official is also authorised to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section 4 of section 103 of B.N.S.S. No explanation has come on record to show why notice was not served upon the public witnesses requiring them to join the proceedings or to face action under section 222 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The object of Section 103 of B.N.S.S is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. However the investigating officer/PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the police official is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case. In the absence of any independent witness having been joined in the investigation, false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hemraj

Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2005 SC 2110, wherein it was observed that, “the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case”. The learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sathyan v. State of Kerala (SLP (Crl.)

No. 9710 of 2023, decided on 11-08-2023). With great respect, it is submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In Sathyan, the

Hon’ble Court held that conviction can be sustained on the basis of credible

testimony of official witnesses even in the absence of independent corroboration, and that minor discrepancies such as delay in filing the final report, clerical mistakes in mahazar, or slight mismatch in quantity of samples do not vitiate the 11 prosecution when no real prejudice is shown. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. Here, the prosecution evidence suffers from fundamental procedural defects which directly undermine the credibility of the seizure and the integrity of the case property. In Sathyan case the Investigating officer secured the mediator. However he did not support the case of the prosecution but this is not such a case. The lapses are not minor or clerical in nature but go to the root of the matter. Further, the testimony of the official witnesses itself is doubtful and does not inspire the confidence of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the principle laid down in

Sathyan cannot be invoked to cure the fatal defects in the prosecution case at hand. Reliance on the said judgment is thus misplaced.

18.As seen from the record, no Special circumstances are appearing to explain what compelled the PW.1 to proceed under Ex.P1 Occurrence report, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area and the time of arrest is not an odd hours. Except the confession of the accused, no other evidence on record to show that the accused having possession of '08' liquor bottles. However, confession of accused before the police officer is totally inadmissible as per section 23 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1. Hence, the search and seizure of '08' liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved. There is no basis to prove that accused possessed the same for the purpose of selling them. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in 12 force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.29/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special

Deluxe Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.18 15:10:17 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW.1: S. Gurumurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police ---None---

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1: Occurrence report ---Nil-- Ex.P2:Original F.I.R. in Cr.No.136/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapta Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report 13

Material Objects for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey. ---Nil--

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.18 15:10:47 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

// True Copy//

Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.18 15:11:24 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

1

APSR0C0005932026

District : Srikakulam

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Date of offence29.10.2025

Date of report or complaint29.10.2025

Date of apprehension of accused29.10.2025 29.10.2025 Date of release on bail 35 (3) B.N.S.S. Notice

Date of commencement of trial04-05-2026

Date of closure of trial05-05-2026

Date of Judgment19-05-2026

No delay, because the case is disposed off Explanation for delay and remarkswithin 90 days from the date of cognizance i.e., on 26-03-2026.

145On the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Calendar and Judgment inOF the first Class, Narasannapeta. C.C.No.2026

Complainant : The State represented by Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasannapeta in Crime No.140/2025 u/Sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

Name of the accused, Fat./Hus. name, Aged, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal

Potnuru Malleswara Rao, S/o Late Jagannadam, age 69 years, R/o Vodhipadu village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Offence: under Section 34(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2023: imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

2

Finding: Not guilty.

Result:The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.30/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.19 12:44:10 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Srikakulam.

// True Copy// Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.19 12:44:48 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

3

APSR0C0005932026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Ms. S. Vani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.145 of 2026

(Cr. No.140/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta)

Between:

The State represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta.

…. Complainant And :

Potnuru Malleswara Rao, S/o Late Jagannadam, age 69 years, R/o Vodhipadu village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...... Accused

This case is coming before me i.e., on 19-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri P. Ramu, Learned Advocate for accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise Station, Narasannapeta police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.140/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968.

4

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 29.10.2025 at about 17:00 hours, PW.1-S. Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-N. Mukundarao and Lw.2-Ch.

Dharmarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to

Vodhipadu Village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands. Immediately PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to secure mediators PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '07' bottles of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '07' bottles. Then

PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the

Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.140/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the Chemical

Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T.

Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

5

3. Cognizance:

The Charge Sheet was taken on file U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 against accused.

4. Compliance of section – 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023:

On the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.230 of B.N.S.S.

5. Examination and charge:

The accused was examined U/Sec.262 of B.N.S.S. The charge under

Section 263 of B.N.S.S was framed for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 and was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6. Evidence adduced by prosecution:

During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides M.O.1 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

Ex.P1 is the Occurrence report, Ex.P2 is the Original F.I.R, Ex.P3 is the Letter of advise and Ex.P4 is the Analysis Report, M.O.1 is the 180 ml sample bottle of

Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey.

7. Statement of Defence:

After cessation of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined u/Sec.351(1)(b) of B.N.S.S. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused is separately read over to the 6 accused. The accused denied all such circumstances as false. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence and submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case.

8. ARGUMENTS:

I have heard the rival submissions by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for state and by Learned counsel for accused and gone through the case record in the backdrop of evidences presented before this court by the prosecution side.

9. Arguments advanced by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

During the course of the arguments, Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

10. Arguments advanced by Defence Counsel:

Per contra Learned Defence counsel contended that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and the accused falsely implicated in this case.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused was found in

possession of illicit liquor and transporting/

manufacturing/selling the same without obtaining any

valid license or permit and thereby accused has

7

committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act,

2023?”

12. POINT:-

I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was found in illegal possession of '07' liquor bottles which is in contravention of Section 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023.

13.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused by stating that PW.1 registered the false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14.Admittedly PW.1 is a Police official and there are no independent mediators secured by PW.1 in this case. The evidence available on the record is the evidence of PW.1, who happened to be Excise Sub-Inspector of police. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 29.10.2025 at about 17:00 hours, PW.1-S.

Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-N.

Mukundarao and Lw.2-Ch. Dharmarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to Vodhipadu Village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands. Immediately PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to secure mediators PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '07' bottles of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '07' bottles. Then PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars 8 of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.140/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of

A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical

Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T. Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

15.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand but he did not issue any written notices to secure mediators and so he cannot say the names of the persons whom he approached to act as mediators in this case. It is also his evidence that Vodhipadu village is having Sachivalayam, VRO, VRA, Surpanch and

MPTC members. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of accused, did not arrest the accused while he was alleged possession of liquor bottles and foisted a false case against the accused only for statistical purpose.

16.As seen from the record, except the interested testimony of PW.1, who is Police Official, there is no independent evidence available on record. Moreover, the entire case is based on Ex.P1/Occurrence report. Admittedly, no mediators were present who witnessed search and seizure. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite evident that PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed 9 procedure as contemplated under section 103(4) B.N.S.S during the search and seizure. Admittedly, no summons were served on the revenue officials calling them to act as mediators. If the fact that his efforts to secure the mediators were went in vain is true, what prevented the PW.1 to take appropriate legal action against the persons refused to assist him. PW.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. It is expedient to have a glance on Sec. 103(4) of

B.N.S.S for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S reads as follows: Before making a search under

this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two

or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the

place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of

the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to

attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or

any of them so to do...”. As per the Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S, when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials have to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand and Vodhipadu village is having VRO, VRA,

Surpanch and MPTC members but PW.1 did not try to secure any government servants or villagers as mediators and PW.1 did not issue any written notices to any person to act as mediators.

17.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer. It is a settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. As referred to in the above provision, the police official is also authorised to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section 4 of section 103 of B.N.S.S. No explanation has come on record to show why notice was not served 10 upon the public witnesses requiring them to join the proceedings or to face action under section 222 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The object of Section 103 of B.N.S.S is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. However the investigating officer/PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the police official is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case. In the absence of any independent witness having been joined in the investigation, false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hemraj

Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2005 SC 2110, wherein it was observed that, “the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case”. The learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sathyan v. State of Kerala (SLP (Crl.)

No. 9710 of 2023, decided on 11-08-2023). With great respect, it is submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In Sathyan, the

Hon’ble Court held that conviction can be sustained on the basis of credible

testimony of official witnesses even in the absence of independent corroboration, and that minor discrepancies such as delay in filing the final report, clerical mistakes in mahazar, or slight mismatch in quantity of samples do not vitiate the prosecution when no real prejudice is shown. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. Here, the prosecution evidence suffers from fundamental procedural defects which directly undermine the credibility of the seizure and the integrity of the case property. In Sathyan case the Investigating officer secured the mediator. However he did not support the case of the prosecution but this is not such a case. The lapses are not minor or clerical in nature but go to the root of the matter. Further, the testimony of the official witnesses itself is doubtful and does not inspire the confidence of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the principle laid down in 11

Sathyan cannot be invoked to cure the fatal defects in the prosecution case at hand. Reliance on the said judgment is thus misplaced.

18.As seen from the record, no Special circumstances are appearing to explain what compelled the PW.1 to proceed under Ex.P1 Occurrence report, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area and the time of arrest is not an odd hours. Except the confession of the accused, no other evidence on record to show that the accused having possession of '07' liquor bottles. However, confession of accused before the police officer is totally inadmissible as per section 23 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1. Hence, the search and seizure of '07' liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved. There is no basis to prove that accused possessed the same for the purpose of selling them. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.30/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special

Deluxe Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of May, 2026.

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.19 12:46:48 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

12

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW.1: S. Gurumurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police ---None---

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Occurrence report Ex.P2:Original F.I.R. in Cr.No.140/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapta Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report

Defence:---Nil---

Material Objects for

Prosecution:-

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Sentini Special Deluxe Whiskey.

Defence:---Nil---

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.19 12:47:19 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

// True Copy// Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.19 12:48:24 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

1

APSR0C0005942026

District : Srikakulam

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Date of offence24.10.2025

Date of report or complaint24.10.2025

Date of apprehension of accused24.10.2025 24.10.2025 Date of release on bail 35 (3) B.N.S.S. Notice

Date of commencement of trial04-05-2026

Date of closure of trial05-05-2026

Date of Judgment20-05-2026

No delay, because the case is disposed off Explanation for delay and within 90 days from the date of cognizance remarks i.e., on 26-03-2026.

146On the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Calendar and Judgment inOF the first Class, Narasannapeta. C.C.No.2026

Complainant : The State represented by Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narasannapeta in Crime No.139/2025 u/Sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

Name of the accused, Fat./Hus. name, Aged, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal

Mucha Ramarao, S/o (Late) Appayya, age 60 years, R/o Yarabadu colony, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Offence: under Section 34(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2023: imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

Finding: Not guilty.

2

Result:The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.31/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Bangalore Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.20 12:36:41 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Srikakulam.

// True Copy/ Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.20 12:37:11 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

3

APSR0C0005942026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NARASANNAPETA

PRESENT: Ms. S. Vani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta

Wednesday, this the 20th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.146 of 2026

(Cr. No.139/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta)

Between:

The State represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapeta.

…. Complainant And :

Mucha Ramarao, S/o (Late) Appayya, age 60 years, R/o Yarabadu colony, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...... Accused

This case is coming before me i.e., on 20-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri P. Ramu, Learned Advocate for accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise Station, Narasannapeta police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.139/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968.

4

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 24.10.2025 at about 16:45 hours, PW.1-S. Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-N. Mukundarao and Lw.2-Ch.

Dharmarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to

Narasannapeta village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands. Immediately

PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to secure mediators

PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '06' bottles of Bangalore Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '06' bottles. Then

PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the

Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.139/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise

Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the Chemical

Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T.

Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

5

3. Cognizance:

The Charge Sheet was taken on file U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 against accused.

4. Compliance of section – 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023:

On the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.230 of B.N.S.S.

5. Examination and charge:

The accused was examined U/Sec.262 of B.N.S.S. The charge under

Section 263 of B.N.S.S was framed for the offence U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A. P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 and was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6. Evidence adduced by prosecution:

During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides M.O.1 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

Ex.P1 is the Occurrence report, Ex.P2 is the Original F.I.R, Ex.P3 is the Letter of advise and Ex.P4 is the Analysis Report, M.O.1 is the 180 ml sample bottle of

Bangalore Whiskey.

7. Statement of Defence:

After cessation of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined u/Sec.351(1)(b) of B.N.S.S. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused is separately read over to the 6 accused. The accused denied all such circumstances as false. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence and submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case.

8. ARGUMENTS:

I have heard the rival submissions by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for state and by Learned counsel for accused and gone through the case record in the backdrop of evidences presented before this court by the prosecution side.

9. Arguments advanced by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

During the course of the arguments, Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

10. Arguments advanced by Defence Counsel:

Per contra Learned Defence counsel contended that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and the accused falsely implicated in this case.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proves beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused was found in

possession of illicit liquor and transporting

/manufacturing/selling the same without obtaining any

valid license or permit and thereby accused has

7

committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act,

2023?”

12. POINT:-

I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was found in illegal possession of '06' liquor bottles which is in contravention of Section 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023.

13.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused by stating that PW.1 registered the false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14.Admittedly PW.1 is a Police official and there are no independent mediators secured by PW.1 in this case. The evidence available on the record is the evidence of PW.1, who happened to be Excise Sub-Inspector of police. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 24.10.2025 at about 16:45 hours, PW.1-S.

Gurumurthy, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with Lw.1-N.

Mukundarao and Lw.2-Ch. Dharmarao conducted patrolling to detect excise offences and proceeded to Narasannapeta village of Narasannapeta Mandal. On seeing police arrival the accused try to escape from there with one polythene bag in his hands. Immediately PW.1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired about his escaping nature. On which the accused confessed that the polythene bag contains liquor bottles and he purchased the same from government wine shop and selling the same for higher prices in his village. Since he failed to secure mediators PW.1 decided to inscribe Occurrence report and opened the polythene bag and found '06' bottles of Bangalore Whiskey (180 ml., each). Total '06' bottles. Then PW.1 questioned and obtained the identity particulars 8 of the accused and also questioned the accused about having any valid licence or permission for having possession of liquor bottles but he failed to produce the same. Thereupon, PW.1 drawn sample bottles, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by him along with his staff and the accused, seized the contraband and sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report. Then PW.1 left the place and returned to station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the Occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.139/2025, U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of

A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and served a notice under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as B.N.S.S) to accused. Later he forwarded the sample bottles along with letter of advice and requisition to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis purpose. On analysis of sample, the Chemical

Examiner opined that the sample is ‘Indian Liquor’. After completion of investigation, Lw.4- T. Venkatappala Naidu, Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

15.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand but he did not issue any written notices to secure mediators and so he cannot say the names of the persons whom he approached to act as mediators in this case. It is also his evidence that Narasannapeta village is having Sachivalayam, VRO, VRA,

Surpanch and MPTC members. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of accused, did not arrest the accused while he was alleged possession of liquor bottles and foisted a false case against the accused only for statistical purpose.

16.As seen from the record, except the interested testimony of PW.1, who is Police Official, there is no independent evidence available on record. Moreover, the entire case is based on Ex.P1/Occurrence report. Admittedly, no mediators were present who witnessed search and seizure. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite evident that PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed 9 procedure as contemplated under section 103(4) B.N.S.S during the search and seizure. Admittedly, no summons were served on the revenue officials calling them to act as mediators. If the fact that his efforts to secure the mediators were went in vain is true, what prevented the PW.1 to take appropriate legal action against the persons refused to assist him. PW.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. It is expedient to have a glance on Sec. 103(4) of

B.N.S.S for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S reads as follows: Before making a search under

this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two

or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the

place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of

the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to

attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or

any of them so to do...”. As per the Sec. 103(4) of B.N.S.S, when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials have to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is busy locality and also having an auto stand and Narasannapeta village is having VRO,

VRA, Surpanch and MPTC members but PW.1 did not try to secure any government servants or villagers as mediators and PW.1 did not issue any written notices to any person to act as mediators.

17.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer. It is a settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 103(4) of B.N.S.S. As referred to in the above provision, the police official is also authorised to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section 4 of section 103 of B.N.S.S. No explanation has come on record to show why notice was not served 10 upon the public witnesses requiring them to join the proceedings or to face action under section 222 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The object of Section 103 of B.N.S.S is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. However the investigating officer/PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the police official is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case. In the absence of any independent witness having been joined in the investigation, false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hemraj

Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2005 SC 2110, wherein it was observed that, “the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case”. The learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sathyan v. State of Kerala (SLP (Crl.)

No. 9710 of 2023, decided on 11-08-2023). With great respect, it is submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In Sathyan, the

Hon’ble Court held that conviction can be sustained on the basis of credible

testimony of official witnesses even in the absence of independent corroboration, and that minor discrepancies such as delay in filing the final report, clerical mistakes in mahazar, or slight mismatch in quantity of samples do not vitiate the prosecution when no real prejudice is shown. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. Here, the prosecution evidence suffers from fundamental procedural defects which directly undermine the credibility of the seizure and the integrity of the case property. In Sathyan case the Investigating officer secured the mediator. However he did not support the case of the prosecution but this is not such a case. The lapses are not minor or clerical in nature but go to the root of the matter. Further, the testimony of the official witnesses itself is doubtful and does not inspire the confidence of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the principle laid down in 11

Sathyan cannot be invoked to cure the fatal defects in the prosecution case at hand. Reliance on the said judgment is thus misplaced.

18.As seen from the record, no Special circumstances are appearing to explain what compelled the PW.1 to proceed under Ex.P1 Occurrence report, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area and the time of arrest is not an odd hours. Except the confession of the accused, no other evidence on record to show that the accused having possession of '06' liquor bottles. However, confession of accused before the police officer is totally inadmissible as per section 23 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1. Hence, the search and seizure of '06' liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved. There is no basis to prove that accused possessed the same for the purpose of selling them. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/Sec.271(1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the next six months, as required u/Sec. 481 of B.N.S.S. The property under C.P.R. No.31/2026, i.e., M.O.1 (180 ml sample bottle of Bangalore Whiskey) shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of May, 2026. SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.20 12:37:48 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

12

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW.1: S. Gurumurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police ---None---

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Occurrence report Ex.P2:Original F.I.R. in Cr.No.139/2025 of Proh & Excise Station, Narasannapta Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report

Defence:----Nil---

Material Objects for

Prosecution:-

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Bangalore Whiskey

Defence:----Nil---

SABBAVARAPUDigitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPU VANI

VANI

Date: 2026.05.20 12:38:22 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.

// True Copy/ Digitally Signed by

SABBAVARAPUSABBAVARAPU VANI

Date: 2026.05.20 12:38:54 +0530

VANI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasannapeta.