Smt.S.Vara Lakshmi

Page 1 of 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

UDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offenceDate of ReportApprehensionRelease on of Accusedbail (1)(2)(3)(4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08-05-202308-05-202308-05-2023 10-5-2023 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement Close of trailSentence of orderExplanation for of trialdelay (5)(6)(7)(8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20-10-2023 7-11-20238-11-2023 Due to non

Production of witnesses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No.146 of 2023 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakole.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Rep.by TheInspectorof Police of

SEB, Palakollu in Cr.No.23/2023 of Palakol SEB Station.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused : Gubbala Satyanarayana, S/o. Jagannadham, Age. 63 years, C/o. Settibalija, R/o. Penumadam vilalge, Poduru Mandal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : under sections 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

CC.No.146 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 2 of 9

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the off ence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of Cr.P.C. The

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

Copy to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: West Godavari,

Eluru. Copy to The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge: West

Godavari, Eluru.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC.No.146 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 3 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE

Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakol.

Wednesday, this the 8t h d ay o f N o v e mb e r, 2 0 2 3 .

CALENDAR CASE. No. 146 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

State Represented by its Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakole. ... Complainant.

AND

Gubbala Satyanarayana,

S/o. Jagannadham, Age. 63 years,

C/o. Settibalija, R/o. Penumadam village,

Poduru Mandal ... Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of and Sri R.Deva Raju, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakol had filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.23/2023 of Special

Enforcement Bureau, Prohibition and Excise, Palakol, for the offence under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (A.P. Prohibition Act herein after refer to as A.P.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 8-05-2023 at about 9:00 AM as per the instructions of the Addl.

Superintendent of police, Bhimavaram and Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram, conducting raids by L.W.1 along with L.W.2 and staff conducting raids for

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 4 of 9 detection of Prohibition & Excise offences reached at the vacant site at the Northern side of the house of Gubbala

Satyanarayana S/o. Jagannadham situated at the southern side of Penumadam to Palakole road in Penumadam village limits of Poduru Mandal. They reached the place one person standing along with one white color mica hand bag. On seeing the raid party with inform he was tried to escape at that place.

On suspicious immediately with the help of staff detained the person along with his mica hand bag. In the presence of the staff on enquiry about trying to escape and the content of the mica hand bag, he revealed that there are liquor bottles in the bag hence tried to escape. Sent L.W.2 to secure local mediators, after few minutes she return back and said that the local VRO not available and the local persons not come to act as mediators and they are not disclosed their identity. In the presence of the staff L.W.1 examined the bag and found that there are Old Timer Blue Classic whiskey of 180ml size-6 bottles B.No. 26 dt. 14-3-2023 MRP. 130/- bottles with company labels and batch numbers having for sale in Andhra

Pradesh only".. The bottles Adhesive labels were scratched (removed). In the presence of the staff L.W.1 questioned whether he has permit, license or bill to possess above bottles.

The accused replied that there is no permit, license or bill to possess the above bottles with him and he also revealed that he purchased the liquor bottles at Penumadam GRO on the MRP rate the same bottles sales at this place in higher prices for profit. L.W.1 explained that above the permission of liquor bottles, possession of liquor bottles and sold of liquor bottles without licence or permit in an offence under A.P.Prohibition

Act and arrested the accused and taken one bottle as sample to send for chemical analysis purpose. Then after seizure of the remaining property affixed identity slips duly signed by them and the accused to the sample and the IML bottles hand bag under the cover of Special report drafted on the spot. L.W.1 return to station along with case file, accused and property and registered the case as FIR in Cr.No.23/2023 under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)Act 2020 and the

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 5 of 9 accused was produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. L.W.1 sent the sample to the chemical Examiner,

Kakinada through Assistant Enforcement superintendent of

Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimavaram. The chemical

Examiner, Kakinada analyzed the sample and issued laboratory analysis report vide C.E.No.1696/2023 dated 13-7- 2023 and opined that the sample at Sl.No. 13879 is Indian

Made liquor. The remaining property confiscated with the orders of the Dy.Commissioner of Special Enforcement

Superintendent Bureau, Vijayawada vide Rc.No. 1313/2022/A,

dt. 01-9-2023.L.W.3 resumed investigation and concluded the

case that the accused indulged himself in illegal possession of liquor bottles without valid permit or license. Thus, after completion of investigation, L.W.2 filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal

Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused has examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused had denied by the accused and then charge for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)

(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act has been framed and the same had read over, explained to the accused in Telugu Language and for which he has denied same and claimed for trial.

6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and the prosecution has got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 6 of 9 of defence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides. Court has gone through the entire material on record and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidences of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 had coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 supported the prosecution case and prosecution has proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays the court to punish the accused according to Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has falsely foisted false case against the accused and also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.Admittedly there is no independent witness in this case. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not have corroboration of independent witness. On perusal of the record, there is no independent witness. Police has failed to give reasonable explanation why they could not get mediators. The material on record showing that P.W.1 to P.W.3 has not taken sincere steps to secure and search for the independent witness or the local inmates as mediators in this case. In this case, except the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are police officers no other independent witness or independent person are neither examined nor cited nor produced before the court to prove

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 7 of 9 the seizure of M.O.1 that the M.O.1 has seized from the possession of accused. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not depose the confidence of the court because P.W.1 is the

Investigation officer and P.W.2 is a n o t h e r investigation officer who filed charge sheet. As per section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act confession made to the police officer is not admissible in evidence. In view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the official witness like P.W.1 to P.W.3 without corroboration of independent witness evidence. The alleged seizure of the

M.O.1 from possession of the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. According to section 100 of Cr.PC, the investigation officer shall call upon two or more respectable persons in the locality and may issue an order in writing to his or to her or any of his shall to do. As per section 100(8) of

Cr.PC if any person when not reasonable cause refused or neglected to attend and witness a such under this section when call upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him shall be deemed it for committing an offence under section 187 of IPC. The detecting officer has failed to follow the provisions of section 100(4), section 100(8) of Cr.PC. The decision reported in between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs State of

A.P represented by the public prosecutor through Prohibition and

Excise P.S in Criminal Revision Case Number 492/2004, dt 11.09.09, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P reveal that when conducting search on information at a place where there is possibility of securing presence of independent mediators the

Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable inhabitants as mediators. PW.1 must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators. That is mandate of Section 100 (4) of the Excise Officials also authorized to issue an order in writing calling them to act as mediators under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Therefore based on the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are the police officers and Investigation officer without corroboration of independent witness and without compliance of section 100(4) and section 100(8) if accused is convicted, it leads to miscarriage of justice.

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 8 of 9

Moreover, there is no clear, corroborative evidence against the accused to prove any of the ingredients under alleged sections and in fact there is no evidence or no convincing material or no incriminating evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had committed the evidence as alleged. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act with cogent, coherent, consistent, explaining evidence and in the light of above said decision and discussion this court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has given to the accused and accordingly the accused is entitle for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Type to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: B.Veerabhadrarao.- N O N E -

P.W.2: L.Chiranjeevi.

P.W.3: Sk.Khasim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Special Report.-NIL-

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 9 of 9

Ex.P2 : Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P3 : Confiscation proceedings.

Ex.P4 : FIR.

Ex.P5 :Letter of advice.

M.O.’s MARKED :

M.O.1: One unspent portion of sample liquor bottle.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

CC.No. 146 of 2023 ,

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakolol

Page 1 of 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offenceDate of ReportApprehensionRelease on of Accused bail (1)(2)(3)(4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14-2-202314-2-202314-02-202315-02-2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement Close of trailSentence of orderExplanation for of trial delay (5)(6)(7)(8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25-10-20237-11-20238-11-2023 Due to non

Production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No.144 of 2023 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakole.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Rep.by TheInspector of Police of

SEB, Palakollu in Cr.No.7/2023 of Palakol SEB Station.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused : Ganesula Anjaneyulu, S/o. Achiyya, Age. 66 years,

C/o. Kapu, R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Yalamanchili Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 2 of 9

Offence : under sections 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP (Amendment ) Act,2020.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

Copy to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: West Godavari,

Eluru. Copy to The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge: West

Godavari, Eluru.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 3 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE

Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakol.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of November,2023.

CALENDAR CASE. No. 144 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

State Represented by its Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakole. ... Complainant.

AND

Ganesula Anjaneyulu,

S/o. Achiyya, Age. 66 years, C/o. Kapu,

R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Yalamanchili Mandal.

... Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of and Sri V.Anand Raju, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakol had filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.7/2023 of Special

Enforcement Bureau, Prohibition and Excise, Palakol, for the offence under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (A.P. Prohibition Act herein after refer to as A.P.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 14-02- 2023 at about 6:00 AM as per the instructions of the

Addl.Superintendent of Police, Bhimavaram and Assistant

Enforcement superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram, L.W.1 and

L.W.2 along with staff conducting raids for detection of

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 4 of 9

Prohibition & Excise offences reached at the left side road margin at the gate of Electrical office situated at the left side of

Doddipatla road in Yallavanigaruvu village limits of Palakole

Mandal found a person having mica hand bag in his right hand. On seeing the raid party with uniform he was tried to escape from that place. On suspicious immediately with the help of staff detained the person along with his mica hand bag.

In the presence of the staff on enquiry about try to escape and the content of the mica hand bag, he revealed that there are liquor bottles in the bag hence tried to escape. Sent L.W.2 to secure local mediators, after few minutes he return back and said that the local VRO not available and the local persons not come to act as mediators and they are not disclosed their identity. In the presence of the staff L.W.1 examined the bag and found that there are “Old Timer Blue Classic whiskey” of 180ml size-07 bottles B.No.167, dt.18-1-2023, MRP.130/- bottles with company labels and batch numbers having For sale in Andhra Pradesh only". The bottles Adhesive labels were scratched (removed). In the presence of the staff L.W.1 questioned whether he has permit, license or bill to possess above bottles. The accused replied that there is no permit, license or bill to possess the above bottles with him and he also revealed that he purchased the liquor bottles at Kontheru GRO on the MRP rate the same bottles sales at this place in higher prices for profit. L.W.1 explained that above possession of liquor bottles possession of liquor bottles and sold of liquor bottles without license or permit is an offence under A.P.

Prohibition Act, and arrested the accused and taken one bottle as samples to send for chemical analysis purpose. Then after seizure of the remaining property affixed identity slips duly signed by them and the thumb impression of the accused to the sample bottle and IML bottles hand bag under the cover of

Special report drafted on the spot. L.W.1 return to station along with case file, accused and property and registered the case as

FIR in Cr.No. 7/2023 under setion 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court for Judicial Remand. L.W.1

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 5 of 9 sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada through

Assistant Enforcement superintendent of Special Enforcement

Bureau, Bhimavaram. The chemical Examiner, Kakinada analyzed the sample and issued laboratory analysis report vide

C.E.No. 688/2023 dt.28-3-2023 and opined that the sample at

SL.No. 6179 is Indian Made liquor. The remaining property confiscated with the orders of the Dy.Commissioner of Special

Enforcement Superintendent Bureau, Vijayawada vide Rc.No.

1313/2022/A, dt. 01-09-2023. L.W.3 resumed investigation and concluded the case that the accused indulged himself in illegal possession of liquor bottles without valid permit or licence. Thus, after completion of investigation, L.W.4 filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b )(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused has examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused had denied by the accused and then charge for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)

(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act has been framed and the same had read over, explained to the accused in Telugu Language and for which he has denied same and claimed for trial.

6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and the prosecution has got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides. Court has gone through the entire material on record and perused the record.

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 6 of 9

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidences of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 had coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 supported the prosecution case and prosecution has proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays the court to punish the accused according to Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has falsely foisted false case against the accused and also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the police officers and P.W.1 and

P.W.3 are the Investigation officers. Admittedly there is no independent witness in this case. The evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 does not have corroboration of independent witness. On perusal of the record, there is no independent witness. Police has failed to give reasonable explanation why they could not get mediators at the time of seizure of M.O.1. The material on record showing that P.W.1 to P.W.3 has not taken sincere steps to secure and search for the independent witness or the local inmates as mediators in this case for prove the seizure of

M.O.1 from accused. In this case, except the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are police officers no other independent witness or independent person are neither examined nor cited

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 7 of 9 nor produced before the court to prove the seizure of

M.O.1 that the M.O.1 has seized from the possession of accused. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not depose the confidence of the court because P.W.1 is the Investigation officer and P.W.3 is an other investigation officer. As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act confession made to the police officer is not admissible in evidence. In view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the official witness like P.W.1 to P.W.3 without corroboration of independent witness evidence. The alleged seizure of the

M.O.1 from possession of the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. According to section 100 of Cr.PC, the investigation officer shall call upon two or more respectable persons in the locality and may issue an order in writing to his or to her or any of his shall to do. As per section 100(8) of

Cr.PC if any person when not reasonable cause refused or neglected to attend and witness a such under this section when call upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him shall be deemed it for committing an offence under section 187 of IPC. The detecting officer has failed to follow the provisions of section 100(4), section 100(8) of Cr.PC. The decision reported in between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs State of

A.P represented by the public prosecutor through Prohibition and

Excise P.S in Criminal Revision Case Number 492/2004, dt 11.09.09, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P reveal that when conducting search on information at a place where there is possibility of securing presence of independent mediators the Excise

Officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable inhabitants as mediators. PW.1 must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators. That is mandate of Section 100 (4) of the Excise Officials also authorized to issue an order in writing calling them to act as mediators under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Therefore based on the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are the police officers and Investigation officer without corroboration of independent witness and without compliance of section 100(4) and section 100(8) if accused is convicted, it leads to miscarriage of justice.

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 8 of 9

Moreover, there is no clear, corroborative evidence against the accused to prove any of the ingredients under alleged sections and in fact there is no evidence or no convincing material or no incriminating evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had committed the evidence as alleged. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P.Prohibition Act with cogent, coherent, consistent, explaining evidence and in the light of above said decision and discussion this court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has given to the accused and accordingly the accused is entitle for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P.P Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Type to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: L.Chiranjeevi.- N O N E -

P.W.2: M.B.A.Shariff.

P.W.3: Sk.Khasim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P2 : Confiscation proceedings( Attested).

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 9 of 9

Ex.P3 : Special Report.

Ex.P4 : FIR.

Ex.P5 : Letter of advice.

M.O.’s MARKED :

M.O.1 : Unspent portion of sample liquor bottle ( Old Timer Blue

Classic Whiskey).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

CC.No.144 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 1 of 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offenceDate of ReportApprehensionRelease on of Accusedbail (1)(2)(3)(4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-2-202327-02-202327-02-202301-03-2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement Close of trailSentence of order Explanation for of trial delay (5)(6)(7)(8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25-10-20237-11-20238-11-2023 Due to non

Production of witnesses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No.145 of 2023 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakole.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Represented by The Inspectorof

Police of SEB, Palakollu in Cr.No.10/2023 of Palakol SEB

Station.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused : Geddada Pushpa, D/o. Ketha Desarao, Age. 52 years,

C/o. Settibalija, R/o. Sangamcheruvu village, Palakole Mandal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : under sections 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 2 of 8

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the off ence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of

A.P.P Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PALAKOLE.

Copy to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: West Godavari,

Eluru.

Copy to The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge: West Godavari,

Eluru.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 3 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE

Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakol.

Wednesday, this the 8 th d ay of N o v e mb e r, 2 023.

CALENDAR CASE. No. 145 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

State Represented by its Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau, Palakole.

... Complainant.

AND

Geddada Pushpa, D/o. Ketha Desarao,

Age. 52 years, C/o. Settibalija,

R/o. Sangamcheruvu village, Palakole Mandal

... Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of and Sri R.Chandu, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Palakol had filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.10/2023 of

Special Enforcement Bureau, Prohibition and Excise, Palakol, for the offence under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act (A.P.

Prohibition Act herein after refer to as A.P.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 27-2- 2023 at about 6:30 AM as per the instructions of the Addl.

Superintendent of police, Bhimavaram and Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram, conducting raids by L.W.1 along with L.W.2 and staff conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences reached at the left side road margin opposite to the buddi

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 4 of 8 shop of Geddada Pushpa situated at the southern side of

Gorintada road in Sagamcheruvu village of Palakole Mandal.

On seeing the raid party with uniform she was tried to escape from that place. On suspicious immediately with the help of staff detained the person along with her mica hand bag. In the presence of the staff on enquiry about try to escape and the content of the mica hand bag, she revealed that there are liquor bottles in the bag hence tried to escape. Sent L.W.2 to secure local mediators, after few minutes she return back and said that the local VRO not available and the local persons not come to act as mediators and they are not disclosed their identity. In the presence of the staff L.W.1 examined the bag and found that there are “Classic Blue Finest whiskey” of 180ml size -5 bottles B.No. 323/L3, dt.10-2-2023, MRP 150/- bottles with company labels and Batch numbers having "For sale in Andhra Pradesh only". The bottles Adhesive labels were scratched (removed). In the presence of the staff L.W.1 questioned whether she has permit, license or bill to possess above bottles. The accused replied that there is no permit, license or bill to possess the above bottles with her and she also revealed that she purchased the liquor bottles at

Chittavaram GRO on the MRP rate the same bottles sales at this place in higher prices for profit. L.W.1 explained that above permission of liquor bottles, possession of liquor bottles and sold of liquor bottles without license or permit is an offence under A.P.Prohibition Act, and arrested the accused and taken one bottle as samples to send for chemical analysis purpose. Then after seizure of the remaining property affixed identity slips duly signed by them and the accused to the IML bottles hand bag under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. L.W.1 return to station along with case file, accused and property and registered the case as FIR in Cr.No. 10 of 2023 under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. L.W.1 sent the sample to the chemical Examiner, Kakinada through Assistant

Enforcement superintendent of Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimavaram. The chemical Examiner, Kakinada analyzed the

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 5 of 8 sample and issued laboratory analysis report vide

C.E.No.688/2023 dt.28-3-2023 and opined that the sample at

Sl.No.6186 is Indian Made liquor. The remaining property confiscated with the orders of the Dy.Commissioner of Special

Enforcement Superintendent Bureau, Vijayawada vide Rc.No.

1313/2022/A, dt. 01-9-2023. L.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal

Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused has examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused had denied by the accused and then charge for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8

(b) (i) of A.P.Prohibition Act has been framed and the same had read over, explained to the accused in Telugu Language and for which she has denied same and claimed for trial.

6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and the prosecution has got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides. Court has gone through the entire material on record and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 6 of 8 and M.O.1.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidences of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 had coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 supported the prosecution case and prosecution has proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays the court to punish the accused according to Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses hadsuffered withseveral contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has falsely foisted false case against the accused and also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the police officers and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the Investigation officers. Admittedly there is no independent witness in this case. The evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 does not have corroboration of independent witness. On perusal of the record, there is no independent witness. Police has failed to give reasonable explanation why they could not get mediators at the time of seizure of M.O.1. The material on record showing that P.W.1 to P.W.3 has not taken sincere steps to secure and search for the independent witness or the local inmates as mediators in this case for prove the seizure of M.O.1 from accused. In this case, except the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are police officers no other independent witness or independent person are neither examined nor cited nor produced before the court to prove the seizure of

M.O.1 that the M.O.1 has seized from the possession of accused. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 does not depose the confidence of the court because P.W.1 is the

Investigation officer and P.W.3 is an other investigation officer. As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act confession made to the police officer is not admissible in evidence. In view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the official witness like P.W.1 to P.W.3 without corroboration of independent witness evidence. The

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 7 of 8 alleged seizure of the M.O.1 from possession of the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. According to section 100 of Cr.PC, the investigation officer shall call upon two or more respectable persons in the locality and may issue an order in writing to his or to her or any of his shall to do. As per section 100(8) of Cr.PC if any person when not reasonable cause refused or neglected to attend and witness a such under this section when call upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him shall be deemed it for committing an offence under section 187 of IPC. The detecting officer has failed to follow the provisions of section 100(4), section 100(8) of Cr.PC. The decision reported in between S.Babu Saheb @

Babu Vs State of A.P represented by the public prosecutor through Prohibition and Excise P.S in Criminal Revision Case

Number 492/2004, dt 11.09.09, on the file of the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P reveal that when conducting search on information at a place where there is possibility of securing presence of independent mediators the Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable inhabitants as mediators. PW.1 must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators. That is mandate of Section 100 (4) of the

Excise Officials also authorized to issue an order in writing calling them to act as mediators under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

Therefore based on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are the police officers and Investigation officer without corroboration of independent witness and without compliance of section 100(4) and section 100(8) if accused is convicted, it leads to miscarriage of justice. Moreover, there is no clear, corroborative evidence against the accused to prove any of the ingredients under alleged sections and in fact there is no evidence or no convincing material or no incriminating evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had committed the evidence as alleged. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act with cogent, coherent, consistent, explaining evidence and in the light of above said decision and discussion this court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 8 of 8 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has given to the accused and accordingly the accused is entitle for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P.P Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Type to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: L.Chiranjeevi. - N O N E -

P.W.2: B.Venkata Kumari.

P.W.3: Sk.Khasim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Chemical analysis Report.-NIL-

Ex.P2 : Confiscation Proceedings ( Attested).

Ex.P3 : Special Report.

Ex.P4 : FIR.

Ex.P5 : Letter of advice.

M.O.’s MARKED :

M.O.1: One unspent portion of sample liquor bottle of (Classic Blue

Finest Whiskey).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

CC.No.145 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 1 of 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offenceDate of ReportApprehensionRelease on of Accused bail (1)(2)(3)(4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03-04-2023 03-04-202303-04-202304-04-2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement Close of trailSentence of order Explanation for of trialdelay (5)(6)(7)(8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25-10-20237-11-20238-11-2023Due to non

Production of witnesses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No.124 of 2023 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakole.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police of

SEB, Palakole in Cr.No.18/2023 of Palakol SEB Station.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused : Mandadi Naga Venkata Avinash S/o. Venkateswara Rao,

Age. 34 years, C/o. Kamma, R/o. Weavers Colony, Palakole Town and Mandal.

CC.No.124 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 2 of 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : under sections 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP (Amendment )

Act,2020.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The M.O.1 to M.O.3 are shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

Copy to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: West Godavari,

Eluru.

Copy to The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge: West Godavari,

Eluru.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC.No.124 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 3 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE

Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakol. Wednesday, this the 8t h day o f N ov e mb e r, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE. No. 124 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

State Represented by its Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakole. ... Complainant.

AND

Mandadi Naga Venkata Avinash

S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Age. 34 years,

C/o. Kamma, R/o. Weavers Colony,

Palakole Town and Mandal. ... Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of and Sri M.V.R.R. Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakol had filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.18/2023 of Special

Enforcement Bureau, Prohibition and Excise, Palakol, for the offence under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (A.P. Prohibition Act herein after refer to as A.P.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 03-04- 2023 at about 8:15 AM as per the instructions of the Addl.

Superintendent of police Bhimavaram and Assistant

Enforcement superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram. On the

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 4 of 9 reliable information phone to the local VRO and inform the information and requesting to act as mediators. VRO agree and he joined to SEB station team, they all went to SEB station vehicle Reg.No. AP 05 TH 0121 conducting raids for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences reached at the Eastern side road margin opposite to Anantha Lakshmi Timber Depot situated at the eastern side of Palakole to Narsapuram road in

Palakole town limits of Palakole Mandal. At about 8:00 AM found a person having a white mica bag in his right shoulder.

On seeing the raid party with uniform and the mediator he was tried to escape from that place. On suspicious immediately in the presence of the mediators with the help of staff detained the person along with his white mica bag. In the presence of the mediators on enquiry about try to escape and the content of the mica bag, he revealed that there are liquor bottles in the bag hence tried to escape. In the presence of the mediators,

L.W.2 examined the bag and found that there are 1) Mansion

House XO brandy of 750 ml size 12 bottles, B.No. 305, dt.25- 2-2023, (2) Officers choice Reserve whiskey of 750 ml size-6 bottles B.No. 839-L, dt.3-3-2023 and (3) Royal Stag blended whiskey of 750 ml size -2 bottles, B.N. 019 dt.14-5-2022 total (12+6+2=20) bottles NDPL bottles for having " for Sale in

Telangana only" all the above twenty bottles having Non Duty paid liquor bottles, they all having "for sale in Telangana Only".

The bottles Adhesive labels were scratched (removed). In the presence of the mediators L.W.2 questioned he revealed that he went to Hyderabad frequently for his hair transplantation then after completion of work he purchased some Telangana liquor bottles for distribute his workers at his native place. At the same way today he came from Hyderabad along with liquor bottles to gave his workers on the occasion of upcoming "Easter" festival. On the questioned whether he has permit, license or bill to possess above bottles. The accused replied that there is no permit, license or bill to possess the above bottles with him. L.W.2 explained that above possession of other state liquor bottles without license or permit is an

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 5 of 9 offence under A.P.Prohibition Act liquor bottles is having or sold of liquor bottles without license or permit is an offence under A.P.Prohibition Act and arrested the accused and taken two bottles (each brand one) bottles as sample to send for chemical analysis purpose. Then after seizure of the remaining property affixed identity slips duly signed by them and the thumb impression of the accused to the sample and the remaining IML bottles hand bag under the cover of mediators report drafted on the spot. Return to station along with case file, accused and property and registered the case as FIR in

Cr.No.18/2023 under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and the accused was produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. L.W.3 sent the sample to the chemical Examiner, Kakinada through Assistant

Enforcement superintendent of Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimavaram. The chemical Examiner, Kakinada analyzed the sample and issued laboratory analysis report vide C.E.No.

998/2023 dt.4-5-2023 and opined that the sample at Sl.No.

9040,9041 and 9042 are Indian Made liquor. The remaining property confiscated with the orders of the Dy.Commissioner of

Special Enforcement Superintendent Bureau, Vijayawada vide

Rc.No. 1300/2022/C, dt.23-6-2023. L.W.3, after completion of

investigation, filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal

Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused has examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused had denied by the accused and then charge for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act has been framed and the same

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 6 of 9 had read over, explained to the accused in Telugu Language and for which he has denied same and claimed for trial.

6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and the prosecution has got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides. Court has gone through the entire material on record and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.4, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 to M.O.3.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidences of P.W.1 to

P.W.4 had coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 supported the prosecution case and prosecution has proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays the court to punish the accused according to Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 7 of 9 argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has falsely foisted false case against the accused and also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.P.W.1, P.w.2 and P.W.4 are the police officers and P.W.3 is the VRO. Admittedly confession made in the presence of poolice. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 hit by section 26 and section 25 of evidence Act. As per section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act confession made to the police officer is not admissible in evidence and as per section 26 confession made in the presence of police fficers also not admissible. In view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the official witness like P.W.1 to P.W.4 without corroboration of independent witness evidence. The alleged seizure of the

M.O.1 to M.O.3 from possession of the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no clear, corroborative evidence against the accused to prove any of the ingredients under alleged sections and in fact there is no evidence or no convincing material or no incriminating evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had committed the evidence as alleged. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act with cogent, coherent, consistent, explaining evidence and in the light of above said decision and discussion this court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has given to the accused and accordingly the accused is entitle for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 8 of 9 punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437- A of

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Type to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: B.Veerabhadrarao . - N O N E -

P.W.2: L.Chiranjeevi.

P.W.3: Chittajallu Subbarao.

P.W.4: Sk.Khasim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Special Report.-NIL-

Ex.P2 : F.I.R .

Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice.

Ex.P4 : Laboratory Analysis report.

Ex.P5 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings.

M.O.’s MARKED :

M.O.1 : Unspent portion of sample liquor bottles of Mansion House XO Brandy.

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 9 of 9

M.O.2: Unspent portion of sample liquor bottle of Officer Choice Reserve whiskey.

M.O.3: Unspent portion of sample liquor bottle of Royal stag blended whiskey.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

CC.No.124of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 1 of 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offenceDate of ReportApprehensionRelease on of Accusedbail (1)(2)(3)(4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-5-202311-5-202311-5-202312-5-2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement Close of trailSentence of order Explanation for of trialdelay (5)(6)(7)(8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20-10-202308-11-202309-11-2023 Due to non Production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No.152 of 2023 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakole.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police of SEB, Palakollu in Cr.No.26/2023 of Palakol SEB Station.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accused :

1. Kutagula Enoch Benher, S/o. Ramanjaneyulu, age. 24 years,

C/o. Christian, R/o. Kukatpali, Sriramnagar, Hyderabad.

2. Bathula Jeorge, S/o.Jayapal, age. 29 years, C/o. SC (Mala), R/o.

Kontheru vilalge, Yalamanchili Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : under sections 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP ACT.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused 1

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 2 of 8 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

Copy to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: West Godavari, Eluru.

Copy to The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge: West Godavari, Eluru.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol

Page 3 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM- UDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PALAKOLE

Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class: Palakol.

Thursday, this the 9t h d ay of November, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE. No. 152 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

State Represented by its Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau, Palakole.

... Complainant.

AND

1. Kutagula Enoch Benher,

S/o. Ramanjaneyulu, Age. 24 years,

C/o. Christian, R/o. Kukatpali,

Sriramnagar, Hyderabad.

2. Bathula Jeorge, S/o.Jayapal,

Age. 29 years, C/o. SC (Mala),

R/o. Kontheru village, Yalamanchili Mandal.

….. Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of and Sri V.Ananda Raju, Learned Counsel for Accused-1, Sri

K.Yohanu, Learned counsel for Accused-2 and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Palakol had filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.26/2023 of Special

Enforcement Bureau, Prohibition and Excise, Palakol, for the

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.

Page 4 of 8 offence under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 (A.P. Prohibition Act herein after refer to as A.P.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 11-5- 2023 at about 9:00 AM as per the instructions of the Addl.

Superintendent of police, Bhimavaram and Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram, on the reliable information L.W.2 contact to L.W.1 and share the information and requested to act as mediators. Then he agree to act as mediators. L.W.2 along with staff and L.W.1 mediators went to his hired vehicle reg.NO.AP 05 TH 0121. At about 8:30 AM they reached the western side road margin opposite to Ayyappaswamy statue at the eastern side of

Narsapuram road in Palakole town limits of Palakole Mandal conducting route watch. At that time one black color car coming towards Narsapuram to Palakole. In the presence of the mediators L.W.2 and staff stopped and verified the vehicle.

At the time two persons sitting front seat of the vehicle one of driving seat and another one is left side seat. The car is TATA

TIGOR Reg.No. TS 09 FU 0895, Black color car. Opened the car decey and found two carton boxes. In the presence of the mediators opened the boxes and found that they are liquor bottles. Each box contains 6 bottles, total twelve bottles. In the presence of the mediators verified the bottels found that

Master Blender's signature Rare whiskey of 750ml size 12 bottles, B.No. 16/L5/20-4-2023, MRP 900/- total 12 bottles with company labels and batch numbers, for having for sale in Puducherry only. The bottles Adhesive labels were scratched (removed). Then L.W.2 questioned whether he has permit, licence or bill to possess above bottles. He replied no licence or bill to this liquor bottles. In the presence of the mediators L.W.2 questioned their names and details. They are revealed their names and details mentioned above. On enquiry they revealed on the marriage occasion at Palakol, hence they came from Hyderabad. On the occasion they went to Yanam and purchased the above liquor bottles for lower cost and he

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.

Page 5 of 8 bottles own consuming in the marriage occasion. On questioned about the car. The A1 reveals the car in his friend car, he requested and taken the car for the purpose of marriage occasion. L.W.2 explained that above possession of other state liquor bottles without licence or permit is an offence under A.P.Prohibition ACt and arrested the accused and taken one bottle as sample to send for chemical analysis purpose. Then after seizure of the remaining property affixed identity slips duly signed by mediators, SEB officials and the accused to the sample bottle and the NDPL liquor bottles boxes under the cover of mediators report drafted on the spot.

L.W.2 along with staff return to station along with accused, case file and property and he registered the case as FIR in

Cr.No. 26/2023 under sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP. Prohibition (Amendment) Act,2020 and the accused was produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. L.W.2 sent the sample to the Chemical examiner, Kakinada through Asst.

Enforcement superintendent of SEB, Bhimavaram. The chemical Examiner, Kakinada analyzed the sample and issued laboratory analysis report vide C.E.No. 1152/2023 dt.16-5- 2023 and opined that the samples at Sl.No. 9800 is Indian

Madae liquor. As per Rc.No. 827/2023/c dt.21-9-2023 vehicle confiscation of TATA Tigor X2+car NO. TS 09FU0895. The remaining property confiscated with the orders of the Dy.

CommissionerofSEBVijayawadavideRC.No.

1300/2022/C,dt.01-9-2023. L.W.3 filed charge sheet.

3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal

Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused had examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused had denied by the accused and

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.

Page 6 of 8 then charge for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act has been framed and the same had read over, explained to the accused in Telugu Language and for which they has denied same and claimed for trial.

6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard both sides. Court has gone through the entire material on record and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act,beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.4, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidences of P.W.1 to

P.W.4 had coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 supported the prosecution case and prosecution has proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prays the court to punish the accused according to Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are not at all sufficient to prove

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.

Page 7 of 8 accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has falsely foisted false case against the accused and also the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the police officers and P.W.3 is the VRO. Admittedly confession made in the presence of poolice. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 hit by section 26 and section 25 of evidence Act. As per section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act confession made to the police officer is not admissible in evidence and as per section 26 confession made in the presence of police fficers also not admissible. In view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the official witness like P.W.1 to P.W.4 without corroboration of independent witness evidence. The alleged seizure of the M.O.1 from possession of the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no clear, corroborative evidence against the accused to prove any of the ingredients under alleged sections and in fact there is no evidence or no convincing material or no incriminating evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had committed the evidence as alleged. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of

A.P.Prohibition Act with cogent, coherent, consistent, explaining evidence and in the light of above said decision and discussion this court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has given to the accused and accordingly the accused are entitle for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.In the result, Accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.

Page 8 of 8 shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Type to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F ORPROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: B.Veerabhadrarao.- N O N E -

P.W.2: L.Chiranjeevi.

P. W. 3 : Chittajallu Subbarao

P. W.4: Sk.Khasim.DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Mediator Report.-NIL-

Ex.P2 : FIR.

Ex.P3 : Letter of advice.

Ex.P4 : Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P5 : A ttested copy of destruction proceedings.

M.O.’s MARKED :

M.O.1: One unspent portion of s am p l e liquor bottle.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PALAKOLE.

CC.No.152 of 2023.

PJCJ/JFCM:Palakol.