Sri S.Vijay Chandar

C.C.No.310/2017 1 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate: Anakapalle.

PRESENT: SRI S. Vijaya Chandar, XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Monday, the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No.310/2017

Between:

State represented by Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1.Md. Riyaz Khan, S/o. Md. Mustak Khan, 22 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Thanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, n/o. BhiurA Village, Sikari Post, Sant Kabir Nagar, Khalilabad, Uttar Pradesh.

2.Akbal Hussain, S/o. Yaad Ali, 68 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Tanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, n/o. Thuranda villagem Chaikala post, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Mohammad Ashafak Khan, S/o. Ashafak Khan, 51 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Thanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Pune city, Kalewadi, Pune, Maharashtra.

4.Yerasi Rama Prasad Reddy, S/o. Rama Chandra Reddy, 40 yrs., Asst., Manager, Production Department, M/s. Emmennar Pharma Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Paawada, r/o.D.No.26-23-07,nearGowthamBudda Grandhalayam,Chaitanyanagar,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

5.Sunnam Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Kanakambara Rao, 49 yrs, Viswabrahmin, Asst., Manager, Production, M/s.Azico Biophore India Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Parawada, Visakhapatnam, r/o. Flat No.202, Steel Arcade, Gallavanipalem, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam.

6.Ramineedi Ramkumar, S/o. Satya Dhanunjaya Rao, 49 yrs., Kapu, Asst., Manager, Production, M/s Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Ltd., JNPC, Parawada, r/o.D.No.6-61- 4,Sramiknagar,Chinagantyada,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. …Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst., Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Divakar, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Inspector of Police, Parawada P.S., laid a charge sheet against the accused herein in Crime No.172/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC alleging that – on 28.9.2016 and 29.9.2016, the fish in the Pedda Cheruvu of Parawada died due to the chemical waste material threw by Pharma Companies. On the report given by P.W.1 Pyla

Ramachandra Rao, P.W.12 N. Ganesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Parawada P.S., registered the same as a case in Crime No.172/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and

C.C.No.310/2017 2 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the scene of offence and examined the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators under the cover of scene observation report, seized dead fish, water and pharma waste material and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. Basing on the investigation,

P.W.12 added accused No.1 to 3 as accused in the case and served Sec.41 A Cr.P.C., notice on accused No.1 to 3. P.W.12 sent the material objects to Prlincipal/Addl., Director of

Fisheries (AC) Kakinada, East Godavari District and Aqua Lab, State Institute of Fishieries

Technology, Jaggannadhapuram, Kakinada, East Godavari District for analysis. Later, P.W.11

B. Ch. Swamy Naidu, Inspector of Police, Parawada P.S., took up investigation in this case and examined P.W.3 N.V. Sridhar, P.W.6 Sammeta Venkateswara Rao and P.W.7 Mummina

Papayya Dora and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. Basing on his investigation,

P.W.11 added accused No.4 to 6 as accused in this case and served Sec.41 A Cr.P.C., notices on them. The investigation of P.W.11 and 12 revealed that accused No.4 being the Asst.,

Manager, Production of M/s. Emmennar Pharma Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Prawada, accused No.5 being the Asst., Manager, Production of M/s. Azico Biophone India Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Prawada and accused No.6 being the Asst., Manager, Production of M/s. Rakshit Pharmaceuticlas Ltd.,

JNPC, Parawada handed over Pharma Waste Material to accused No.1 to 3 who in turn threw away the said material into Pedda Cheruvu of Parawada and caused contamination of the water and as a result, the fish in the said Pedda Cheruvu died. After completion of the investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.429 of IPC.

2.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this Court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec.429 of I.P.C against the accused. On appearance of accused No.1 to 6 before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 6 were examined

U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and the accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu. They denied the allegations. A charge U/Sec.429 of IPC was framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu. Accused No.1 to 6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.s.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P8 on its behalf. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.W.2, 4 and 5 are the Farmers who did fish farming in Pedda Cheruvu along with P.W.1. P.W.3 is the Store Asst., Manager of

C.C.No.310/2017 3 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. Synergene Pharmaceuticals, Parawada. P.W.6 is the then Manager, Production of Azico

Biophore India Pvt., Ltd., P.W.7 is the General Manager (Admn.) of Rakshit Pharmaceuticals

Pvt., Ltd., P.W.8 and 9 are the witnesses for scene observation report, P.W.11 and 12 are the

Investigating Officers. The evidence of L.W.2 Sirapurapu Sannibabu was given up by the prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 4. The evidenec of L.W.4 Pyla

Ramanababu and L.W.7 Tippana Gangireddy was given up by the prosecution as they died.

The evidence of L.W.8 Thummala Satish Kumar, Stores incharge, Matis Laboratories, JNPC

Parawada and L.W.10 N.V. Sridhar, Chief General Manager, M/s Emmennar Pharma Pvt., Ltd.,

Unit II, JNPC, Parawada, Visakhapatanm was given up by the prosecution as their whereabouts were not known. The evidence of L.W.15 K. Sitaramaraju, Principal/Addl.

Director of Fisheries (AC), Kakinada, East Godavari District and L.W.17 R. Lakshminarayana,

Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Contro Board, Regional Office,

Visakhapatnam was given up by the prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.12. EX.P1 is the report given by P.W.1 to Parawada Police, EX.P2 and P3 are 161 Cr.P.C., statements of

P.W.6 and 7, EX.P4 is the analysis report given by P.W.10 dated 3.10.2016, EX.P5 is the original FIR in Crime No.172/2016 of Parawada P.S., EX.P6 is the scene observation report,

EX.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence and EX.P8 is the analysis report dated 7.10.2016 given by L.W.15 K. Sitaramaraju, Principal/Addl., Director of Fisheries (AC),

Kakinada, East Godavari District.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 6 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to them in Telugu. Accused No.1 to 6 denied the said evidence of the prosecution and stated the same to be false. They reported that they have no evidence to adduce in their defence.

7.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused Perused the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 12 and EX.P1 to P8.

8.Now the point that would arise for determination is –

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 6

for the offence punishable U/Sec.428 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9.The learned Asst., Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 and P.W.8 to 12 and EX.P1 and P4 to P8 proved the case of the prosecution and it is sufficient to

C.C.No.310/2017 4 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and thereby prayed to convict the accused as per law.

10.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused herein is noway concerned with the alleged offences. He further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the witnesses to establish that the accused committed the offences punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused committed the said offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and this case is foisted against the accused for statistical purpose only and the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and thereby prayed to acquit accused No.1 to 6 for the said offence.

11P O I N T:-

It is the case of the prosecution that there is Pedda Cheruvu in Parawada village.

P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 used to Fish farming in the said Pedda Cheruvu. P.W.1 was also the President of Pedda Cheruvu Ayakattu Abhivruddi Sangham from the year 2010 to 2020.

On 28.9.2016 and 29.9.2016, the fish in the said Pedda Cheruvu died due to pharma waste which was threw away by surrounding Pharma Companies in the said Pedda Cheruvu. On the report given by P.W.1, P.W.11 and 12 investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 as their investigation discloses that accused No.4 to 6 being the

Asst., Managers, Production departments of the respective Pharma Companies handed over

Pharma Waste Material to accused No.1 to 3 who in turn threw away the said material into

Pedda Cheruvu of Parawada and caused contamination of the water and as a result, the fish in the said Pedda Cheruvu died.

12. It is to be noted here that the fact that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 were doing fish farming in the Pedda Cheruvu was not denied by accused No.1 to 6. As can be seen from

EX.P1 report, except mentioning that the surrounding pharma companies leave the pharma waste bags in Pedda Cheruvu, Parawada mandal, P.W.1 did not specifically mention the names of Pharma Companies in which accused No.4 to 6 were working as Asst., Managers,

Production. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and EX.P1 report did not disclose the complicity of accused No.4 to 6 in commission of offence that their companies thrown away their Pharma wastage in the said Pedda Cheruvu. It is important to note here that P.Ws 1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 admitted in their cross-examination that there is Vura

Cheruvu and the same was polluted. They also admitted the existence of Waste Treatment

C.C.No.310/2017 5 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. Plant being maintained by Ramky Pharma Company nearby the said Vura Cheruvu. Though it is denied by P.W.1 that the said Vura Cheruvu overflown during rainy season and the water came to Pedda Cheruvu and as such the water in Pedda Cheruvu contaminated and polluted and the Fish died due to the mixing of polluted water of Vura Cheruvu in Pedda Cheruvu,

P.W.2, 4 and 5 admitted the said fact. It is important to note here that it can be seen from the contents of EX.P1 report, there were rains at the relevant time of giving EX.P1 report by

P.W.1. Therefore, it may be one of the reasons that the fish in the Pedda Cheruvu might have died due to overflown polluted water of Vura Cheruvu into Pedda Cheruvu. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5, criminal liability cannot be laid on accused No.1 to 6 as there was another reason for the death of fish in Pedda Cheruvu.

13.Now, it is to be seen whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 6 from the remaining oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.W.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers in this case. P.W.12 registered the report of P.W.1 as a case in Crime No.172/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC and investigated into. He visited the scene of offence and observed the same under EX.P6 scene observation report and EX.P7 rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of

P.W.8 and P.W.9. There is no dispute with regard to the scene of offence. Accused also did not deny the scene of offence. Both P.W.8 and P.W.9 deposed that Police seized a black plastic bag in their presence and on opening the same, they noticed pharma wastage in it.

They further deposed that P.W.12 drew samples of water of Pedda Cheruvu, pharma waste and died fish for analysis. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.8 admitted that he does not know the names of the companies of the wastage items found in Pedda Cheruvu at the time of drafting scene observation report. P.W.9 deposed that he can say that the pharma wastage belongs to MNR Company, Azico Company and three other Pharma

Companies. When coming to his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot read English language and the company names on stickers are written in English language and that he does not know the names of the other three Pharma Companies pharma wastage of which were found in Pedda Cheruvu. P.W.12 who is the Investigating Officer who observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.8 and 9 did not depose anything with regard to the observations made by him in EX.P6 scene observation report. Nowhere in his evidence, he deposed about the names of Pharma Companies of which the wastage was found in the said black plastic cover. Therefore, though P.W.8 and 9 deposed about the finding of pharma

C.C.No.310/2017 6 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. wastage, their evidence is not sufficient to believe that the Pharma waste found in the said plastic bag belongs to the Pharma Companies of accused No.4 to 6 where they were working.

14.It is the case of the prosecution that as the investigation of P.W.12 reveals the involvement of accused No.1 to 3, he added them as accused in this case and served Sec.41

A Cr.P.C., notice on them. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Pharma Companies in which accused No.4 to 6 have entrusted the pharma waste to accused No.1 to 3 for disposal and accused No.1 to 3 in turn leave them in Pedda Cheruvu. To prove the said fact that accused No.1 was entrusted with the pharma waste, the prosecution examined P.W.3 who is the Store incharge of Synergies Pharma Company, JNPC, Parawada, Visakhapatnam. P.W.3 deposed that they used to sell their Pharma wastage in the form of scrap to accused No.1 and on 29.9.2016, they received information from Pollution Control Board that their pharma wastage in the form of bags in Major Panchayat Pedda Cheruvu of Parawada, due to which, the fish in the said Cheruvu died. He also deposed that later they came to know that the persons of accused No.1 removed the labels of pharma wastage bags and thrown them in

Pedda Cheruvu and thereafter they stopped to sell wastage to accused No.1. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that they have no documentary proof to show that his company was selling wastage bags to accused No.1. This evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that there is no documentary proof with regard to their transaction with accused

No.1. Basing on the mere oral evidence of P.W.3, it cannot be concluded that the company in which P.W.3 was working entrusted the Pharma Waste material to accused No.1 and accused No.1 in turn leave the said pharma waste material in Pedda Cheruvu. Even P.W.3 did not depose whether accused No.1 was doing the said business individually or in the name of any Firm. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is not inspiring confidence in the mind of the

Court to believe that they have entrusted the Pharma Waste material to accused No.1 who in turn leave the same in Pedda Cheruvu. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.12 served Sec.41 A Cr.P.C., notice on accused No.1. When that be the case, he did not record any confessional statement of accused No.1 before any independent mediators so as to prove the complicity of accused No.1 in commission of the offence. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, there is no evidence against accused No.2 and 3 in this case. It is beyond the comprehension of this Court how P.W.12 would come to conclusion with regard to the role of accused No.2 and 3 in commission of the offence. The prosecution did not

C.C.No.310/2017 7 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. produce any evidence before this Court to prove the role of accused No.2 and 3 in commission of the offence.

15.It is important to note here that the Manager, Production M/s Azico Biophora India

Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Parawada was examined as P.W.6 to prove that they have have handed over the responsibility of disposal of waste material to accused No.5 and also examined the

Manager (Admn.) M/s. Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Ltd., JNPC, Prawada as P.W.7 to prove that they have handed over the responsibility of disposal of waste material to accused No.6. But, both P.W.6 and 7 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though these witnesses were treated as hostile by the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor and cross- examined them with the permission of the Court, nothing useful was derived from their cross-examination in support of the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 and 7 denied to have stated before Police as in EX.P2 and P3 of their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. Though the prosecution cited L.W.10 N.V. Sridhar, Chief General Manager, M/s Emmennar Pharma (P)

Ltd., Unit II, JNPC, Parawada, Visakhapatnam to prove that their company entrusted the responsibility for disposal of waste material to accused No.4, the prosecution given up his evidence as his whereabouts were not known to the prosecution. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that accused No.4 to 6 leave the Pharma Waste in Pedda

Cheruvu and thereby caused death of fish in the said Pedda Cheruvu.

16.It is pertinent to note here that P.W.10 is the Analyst who analysed the water from

Pedda Cheruvu and issued EX.P4 Analysis report on 3.10.2016. During the cross- examination, P.W.10 admitted that she cannot say when the water was polluted and that with which chemical, the said water was polluted. Therefore, this evidence of P.W.10 shrouded with suspicion. EX.P4 does not disclose the reason or conclusion for P.W.10 to come to the decision that the water was polluted or contaminated. Even she did not depose the manner of anaysis which lead her to come to conclusion that the said water was polluted. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Though EX.P8 analysis report was marked through P.W.12, the author of the said document i.e., L.W.15 K. Sitaramaraju, Principal/Addl., Director of

Fisheries (AC), Kakinada, East Godavari District was not examined before this Court. His evidence was given up by the prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.12. L.W.15 L.W.15

K. Sitaramaraju, Principal/Addl., Director of Fisheries (AC), Kakinada, East Godavari District is the competent person to speak about the cause of death of fish in Pedda Cheruvu. Mere

C.C.No.310/2017 8 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle. marking of EX.P8 through P.W.12 would not give any support to the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, the cause of death of fish in Pedda Cheruvu is not established before this Court though the prosecution got marked EX.P8 report through P.W.12.

17.Therefore, in view of the afore said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the benefit of doubt is given to accused No.1 to 6 for the said offence and accordingly, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused No.1 to 6 and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty any of the offences punishable

U/Sec.429 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Superintendent), corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil PW.1Pyla Rama Chandra Rao (De facto complainant) PW.2Reddy Sreenivasa Rao P.W.3Yenumula Gopi Venkata Krishna Rao , (Store Incharge, Synergies Pharma Company, JNPC, Parawada) P.W.4Pyla Narayanamurthy P.W.5Chukka Appalanaidu P.W.6Sammeta Venkateswara Rao (Manager, Production, M/s. Azico, Biophora India Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Parawada) P.W.7Mummina Papayya Dora (Manager (Admn.) M/s. Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Ltd., JNPC, Parawada) P.W.8Cheepurupalli Sanyasi Rao (mediator) P.W.9Paila Hareesh (mediator) P.W.10Smt. P. Madhavilatha (Officer Incharge, Aqua Lab., State Institute of Fisheries Technology, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada, East Godavari District) P.W.11B. Ch. Swamy Naidu (Inspector of Police, South Sub-Division Crime, Visakhapatnam) P.W.12N. Ganesh (Sub-Inspector of Police, Parawada P.S.)

C.C.No.310/2017 9 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1/29.9.2016 Report given by P.W.1 to Parawada Police. EX.P.2/18.5.2017161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6. EX.P3/18.5.2017161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7. EX.P4/3.10.2016Analysis report given by P.W.10. EX.P5/29.9.2016Original FIR in Crime No.172/2016 of Parawada P.S. EX.P6/29.9.2016Scene observation report. EX.P7/29.9.2016Rough sketch of the scene of offence. EX.P8/7.10.2016Analysis report given by L.W.15 K. Sitaramaraju, Principal/Addl., Director of Fisheries (AC), Kakinada, East Godavari District

No. of MATERIAL OBJECTS marked

Nil

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

C.C.No.310/2017 10 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL., METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:: ANAKAPALLE.

Calendar Case No.310/2017

01.Date of offence:On28.9.2016 and 29.9.2016

02.Date of Complaint :6.6.2017

03.Date of Apprehension of :9.7.2019 the accused

04.Release on bail :---

05.Commencement of trial:10.12.2019

06.Closure of trial:20.4.2023

07.Date of Judgment:24.4.2023

08.Explanation for delay:The delay is due to non-production of the witnesses by prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

09.Name of the complainant:The Inspector of Police, Parawada P.S., in Crime No.172/2016.

10.Name of the accused:1. Md. Riyaz Khan, S/o. Md. Mustak Khan, 22 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Thanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, n/o. BhiurA Village, Sikari Post, Sant Kabir Nagar, Khalilabad, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Akbal Hussain, S/o. Yaad Ali, 68 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Tanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, n/o. Thuranda villagem Chaikala post, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Mohammad Ashafak Khan, S/o. Ashafak Khan, 51 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Thanam village, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Pune city, Kalewadi, Pune, Maharashtra.

4. Yerasi Rama Prasad Reddy, S/o. Rama Chandra Reddy, 40 yrs., Asst., Manager, Production Department, M/s. Emmennar Pharma Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Paawada, r/o.D.No.26-23-07, near Gowtham Budda Grandhalayam,Chaitanyanagar,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

5. Sunnam Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Kanakambara Rao, 49 yrs, Viswabrahmin, Asst., Manager, Production, M/s.Azico Biophore India Pvt., Ltd., JNPC, Parawada, Visakhapatnam, r/o. Flat No.202, Steel Arcade,Gallavanipalem,Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam.

6. Ramineedi Ramkumar, S/o. Satya Dhanunjaya Rao, 49 yrs., Kapu, Asst., Manager, Production, M/s Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Ltd., JNPC, Parawada, r/o.D.No.6-61-4,Sramiknagar,Chinagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

11Offence :U/Sec.429 of IPC

12.Plea of the accused:Not Guilty

13.Finding:Not guilty

14.Sentence:In the result, accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty any of the offences punishable U/Sec.429 of IPC. Accordingly, accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

C.C.No.310/2017 11 XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Dt.24.4.2023 Anakapalle.

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 1 Anakapalle 

IN THE COURT OF THE XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - S. Vijaya Chandar, XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Monday, the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No.566/2021

Between : State represented by P & E., Inspector, P & E., Station, Anakapalle.

...Complainant

And

Shaik Sayyad, S/o. Sk. Rehman, 35 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Batlapudi village, Anakapalle.

...Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. V. Rajarajeswari, learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant State and Sri ASVV Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector, P & E., Station, Anakapalle laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.127/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act 17/2020)

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 20.7.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.1 L. Upendra, P & E., Inspector, P & E., Station,

Anakapalle on reliable information of illegal possession of liquor bottles, he along with his

L.W.1 G. Sankarayya and N. Demudu Raju, P & E., Constables, STF Team II, L.W.3 N. Madhu and K. Naidu Babu, P & E., Constables, Anakapalle proceeded to Sunkarametta junction,

Anakapalle and when they reached highway of the said village, the raid party noticed that the accused was coming in their opposite direction with a white polythene bag. When the accused tried to escape from there with the said cover, P.W.1 intercepted the accused and questioned him about the contents of the said cover. The accused stated that the said cover contained liquor bottles. Then, P.W.1 deputed L.W.3 N. Madhu, P & E., Constable,

Anakapalle to secure mediators, but as they could not secure mediators, P.W.1 verified the said bag and found that it contained twelve nip bottles of Golden Reserve Prestige

Whisky 180 ml., each. The accused confessed that he purchased those liquor bottles from various Govt., Liquor shops for selling them for higher price and that he has no valid licence or permit to possess or sell those liquor bottles. Then, P.W.1 seized the said liquor

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 2 Anakapalle 

bottles from the possession of accused and drew samples under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report. Later, he registered the occurrence report EX.P1 as a case in Crime

No.127/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment

Act, 17/2020) and investigated into. He sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand.

He sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued EX.P3 Analysis report opining that the sample is Indian Liquor. After completion of the entire investigation, P.W.1 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020).

3.The charge sheet was taken on to file for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act 17/2020) by this Court. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusations are read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the allegations. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.1 G. Sankarayya and N. Demudu Raju, P & E., Constables,

STF Team II, L.W.3 N. Madhu and K. Naidu Babu, P & E., Constables, Anakapalle was given up by the Prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.1. EX.P1 is occurrence report, EX.P2 is original FIR in Crime No.127/2020 of P & E., Station, Anakapalle, EX.P3 is Chemical

Analysis report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle of Golden Reserve Prestige Whisky.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the said evidence and stated the same to be false. Accused stated that he has no evidence to adduce in his defence.

6.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused.

7.The learned Asst., Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1, the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 3 Anakapalle 

8.The learned defence counsel argued that PW.1 never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report and he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose only. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst, who issued Ex.P.3 Analysis Report and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

9.The point for determination is -

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. P O I N T:- As can be seen from the material available on record, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 arrested the accused on 20.7.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., at

Sunkarametta junction, Anakapalle while he was in possession of twelve nip bottles of

Golden Reserve Prestige Whisky 180 ml., each, and he seized the contraband under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report.

11.P.W.1 deposed about the apprehension of the accused, seizure of the property and drawing of samples from the contraband on 20.7.2020 under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report as they could not secure independent witnesses. Except the evidence of

P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record.

12.Here, in the present case, the only evidence available for the prosecution is that of

P.W.1 alone. There is no other independent witnesses are cited and examined by the prosecution to prove its case. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is situated in residential locality. When the scene of offence is situated in residential locality, naturally the independent witnesses would be available for P.W.1 to secure them as witnesses or mediators for the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband. But, he did not do so. Even PW.1 did not issue any summons to the surrounding people of the scene of offence to act as mediators. He did not issue any summons to the Village Revenue Officer, Village Revenue Assistant or any other respectable person of the locality requesting them to act as mediators. In the present case on hand, P.W.1 failed to adhere to the mandatory provision of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. In a case between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The State of A.P., reported in 2009(4) A.P.L.J

Page 57, (H.C), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held that:

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 4 Anakapalle 

“When Police or Excise Police are conducting the search in a Colony or

at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are

bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They

must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators.

That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.” Therefore, non-observation of mandatory provision U/Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13.Admittedly, PW.1 is the official witness and interested witness to the prosecution case. No independent witness supported the case of the prosecution. Here, P.W.1 is

Investigating Officer of this case and he cannot be treated as independent witnesses. In the case of Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 641 A.P., the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held at para 6 that –

“On the sole self-serving testimony of de facto-complainant-cum-

Investigating Officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the

evidence of PW.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his

search on 5.7.2002, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly

erred in accepting the evidence of PW.1, without any corroboration. In

fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned

Trial Judge referring to Sec.134 of Evidence Act observed that as there

is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can

act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any

number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be

accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts

highly trustworthy and convincing. But, here this PW.1 being the

complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting

a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he

cannot be compared on par with a prosecutorix in a rape case or a

victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny

of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate

Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of PW.1 for

convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgment of

Courts below are liable to be set aside.”

14. Further, the Chemical Examiner was not cited as a witness in this case. He was not examined by the prosecution to prove that he issued Ex.P.3 chemical analysis report stating that M.O.1 is containing Indian Liquor.

15.Further, the entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution.

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 5 Anakapalle 

16.In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Superintendent), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: PW.1 – L. Upendra (P & E., Inspector, Anakapalle)

DEFENCE: None

No. EHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil Ex.P.1/20.7.2020 Occurrence report. EX.P2/20.7.2020 Original FIR in Crime No.127/2020 of P & E., Station, Anakapalle. EX.P3/22.9.2020 Chemical Analysis report.

No. of MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample bottle of Golden Reserve Prestige Whisky.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI AMM/AKP

C.C.566/2021 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 24.4.2023 6 Anakapalle 

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.566/2021

01.Date of offence:20.7.2020

02.Date of Complaint :26.6.2021

03.Date of Apprehension of the :7.2.2023 accused

04. Release on bail :--

05.Commencement of trial:13.3.2023

06.Closure of trial:20.3.2023

07.Date of Judgment:24.4.2023

08.Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

09.Name of the complainant:The State, represented by P & E., Inspector, Anakapalle in Crime No.127/2020.

10. Name of the accused:Shaik Sayyad, S/o. Sk. Rehman, 35 yrs., Muslim, r/o. Batlapudi village, Anakapalle.

11.Offence :U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Not guilty

14.Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 1 Anakapalle 

IN THE COURT OF THE XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - S. Vijaya Chandar, XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Friday, the 21 st day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No.599/2022

Between : State represented by P & E., Sub-Inspector, P & E., Station, Anakapalle.

...Complainant

And

Esarapu Demudu, S/o. Late Demudu, 29 yrs., Yadava, r/o.H.No.1-84, Golagam village, Anakapalle.

...Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. V. Rajarajeswari, learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant State and Sri K. Sai Ram, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector, P & E., Anakapalle laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.248/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act 17/2020)

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 28.11.2020 at about 6.40 a.m., P.W.1 B. Sreenivasa Rao, P & E., Sub-Inspector, P & E., Station, Anakapalle on reliable information of illegal possession of liquor bottles, he along with his staff L.Ws 1 and 2 N. Madhu and G. Vijay Kumar, P & E., Constables,

Anakapalle, proceeded to Golagam village, Anakapalle. When they reached Durga Devi temple in the said village, the raid party noticed that the accused was coming in their opposite direction with a white polythene bag. When the accused tried to escape from there with the said bag, P.W.1 intercepted the accused and questioned him about the contents of the said bag. The accused stated that the said bag contained liquor bottles.

Then, P.W.1 deputed L.W.1 N. Madhu, P & E., Constable, Anakapalle to secure mediators, but as they could not secure mediators, P.W.1 verified the said bag and found that it contained six nip bottles of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky 180 ml., each. The accused confessed that he purchased those liquor bottles from various Govt., Liquor shops for selling them for higher price and that he has no valid licence or permit to possess or sell those liquor bottles. Then, P.W.1 seized the said liquor bottles from the possession of

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 2 Anakapalle 

accused and drew samples under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report. Later, he registered the occurrence report EX.P1 as a case in Crime No.248/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) and investigated into. He sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand. He sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued EX.P3

Analysis report opining that the sample is Indian Liquor. After completion of the entire investigation, P.W.1 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020).

3.The charge sheet was taken on to file for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act 17/2020) by this Court. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusations are read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the allegations. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.1 and 2 N. Madhu and G. Vijaya Kumar, P & E. Constables,

Anakapalle was given up by the Prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.1. EX.P1 is occurrence report, EX.P2 is original FIR in Crime No.248/2020 of P & E., Station,

Anakapalle, EX.P3 is Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle of Manjeera

Classic Reserve Whisky.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the said evidence and stated the same to be false. Accused stated that he has no evidence to adduce in his defence.

6.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused.

7.The learned Asst., Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1, the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 3 Anakapalle 

8.The learned defence counsel argued that PW.1 never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report and he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose only. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst, who issued Ex.P.3 Analysis Report and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

9.The point for determination is -

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. P O I N T:- As can be seen from the material available on record, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 arrested the accused on 28.11.2020 at about 6.40 a.m., at Durga

Devi temple, Golagam village, Anakapalle while he was in possession of six nip bottles of

Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky Whisky 180 ml., each, and he seized the contraband under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report.

11.P.W.1 deposed about the apprehension of the accused, seizure of the property and drawing of samples from the contraband on 28.11.2020 under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report as they could not secure independent witnesses. Except the evidence of

P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record.

12.Here, in the present case, the only evidence available for the prosecution is that of

P.W.1 alone. There is no other independent witnesses are cited and examined by the prosecution to prove its case. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is situated in residential locality. When the scene of offence is situated in residential locality, naturally the independent witnesses would be available for P.W.1 to secure them as witnesses or mediators for the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband. But, he did not do so. Even PW.1 did not issue any summons to the surrounding people of the scene of offence to act as mediators. He did not issue any summons to the Village Revenue Officer, Village Revenue Assistant or any other respectable person of the locality requesting them to act as mediators. In the present case on hand, P.W.1 failed to adhere to the mandatory provision of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. In a case between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The State of A.P., reported in 2009(4) A.P.L.J

Page 57, (H.C), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held that:

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 4 Anakapalle 

“When Police or Excise Police are conducting the search in a Colony or

at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are

bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They

must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators.

That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.” Therefore, non-observation of mandatory provision U/Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13.Admittedly, PW.1 is the official witness and interested witness to the prosecution case. No independent witness supported the case of the prosecution. Here, P.W.1 is

Investigating Officer of this case and he cannot be treated as independent witnesses. In the case of Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 641 A.P., the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held at para 6 that –

“On the sole self-serving testimony of de facto-complainant-cum-

Investigating Officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the

evidence of PW.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his

search on 5.7.2002, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly

erred in accepting the evidence of PW.1, without any corroboration. In

fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned

Trial Judge referring to Sec.134 of Evidence Act observed that as there

is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can

act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any

number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be

accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts

highly trustworthy and convincing. But, here this PW.1 being the

complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting

a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he

cannot be compared on par with a prosecutorix in a rape case or a

victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny

of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate

Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of PW.1 for

convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgment of

Courts below are liable to be set aside.”

14. Further, the Chemical Examiner was not cited as a witness in this case. He was not examined by the prosecution to prove that he issued Ex.P.3 chemical analysis report stating that M.O.1 is containing Indian Liquor.

15.Further, the entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution.

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 5 Anakapalle 

16.In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Superintendent), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: PW.1 – B. Sreenivasa Rao (P & E., Sub-Inspector, Anakapalle)

DEFENCE: None

No. EHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil Ex.P.1/28.11.2020 Occurrence report. EX.P2/28.11.2020 Original FIR in Crime No.248/2020 of P & E., Station, Anakapalle. EX.P3/22.1.2021 Chemical Analysis report.

No. of MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample bottle of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI AMM/AKP

C.C.599/2022 (P & E., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 6 Anakapalle 

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.599/2022

01.Date of offence:28.11.2020

02.Date of Complaint :228.3.2022

03.Date of Apprehension of the :27.2.2023 accused

04. Release on bail :--

05.Commencement of trial:27.2.2023

06.Closure of trial:24.3.2023

07.Date of Judgment:21.4.2023

08.Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

09.Name of the complainant:The State, represented by P & E., Sub- Inspector, Anakapalle in Crime No.248/2020.

10. Name of the accused:Esarapu Demudu, S/o. Late Demudu, 29 yrs., Yadava, r/o.H.No.1-84, Golagam village, Anakapalle.

11.Offence :U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Not guilty

14.Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 1 Anakapalle 

IN THE COURT OF THE XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - S. Vijaya Chandar, XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Friday, the 21 st day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No.111/2023

Between : State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Anakapalle.

...Complainant

And

Gorli Ramu, S/o. Kannayya, 28 yrs., Kapu, r/o. Vissannapeta village, Kasimkota mandal, Visakhapatnam.

...Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. V. Rajarajeswari, learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant State and Sri ASVV Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector, P & E., Anakapalle laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.43/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act 17/2020)

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 2.2.2021 at about 4.40 p.m., P.W.1 B. Sreenivasa Rao, P & E., Sub-Inspector, P &

E., Station, Anakapalle on reliable information of illegal possession of liquor bottles, he along with his staff L.Ws 1 to 3 Smt. VVS Hemalatha, G. Vijaya Kumar and P. Srinu, P & E.,

Constables, Anakapalle, proceeded to Bayyavaram village, Kasimkota mandal. When they reached Bayyavaram Railway gate, the raid party noticed that the accused was coming in their opposite direction with a white polythene bag. When the accused tried to escape from there with the said bag, P.W.1 intercepted the accused and questioned him about the contents of the said bag. The accused stated that the said bag contained liquor bottles.

Then, P.W.1 deputed L.W.1 Smt. VVS Hemalatha, P & E., Constable, Anakapalle to secure mediators, but as they could not secure mediators, P.W.1 verified the said bag and found that it contained nine nip bottles of Andhra Gold Whisky 180 ml., each. The accused confessed that he purchased those liquor bottles from various Govt., Liquor shops for selling them for higher price and that he has no valid licence or permit to possess or sell those liquor bottles. Then, P.W.1 seized the said liquor bottles from the possession of

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 2 Anakapalle 

accused and drew samples under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report. Later, he registered the occurrence report EX.P1 as a case in Crime No.43/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) and investigated into. He sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand. He sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued EX.P3

Analysis report opining that the sample is Indian Liquor. After completion of the entire investigation, L.W.5 Smt. L. Anuradha, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Anakapalle laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020).

3.The charge sheet was taken on to file for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act 17/2020) by this Court. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusations are read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the allegations. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.1 to 3 and 5 Smt. VVS Hemalatha, G. Vijay Kumar and P.

Srinu, P & E. Constables, Anakapalle was given up by the Prosecution in view of the evidence of P.W.1. EX.P1 is occurrence report, EX.P2 is original FIR in Crime No.43/2021 of

P & E., Station, Anakapalle, EX.P3 is Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle of

Andhra Gold Whisky.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the said evidence and stated the same to be false. Accused stated that he has no evidence to adduce in his defence.

6.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused.

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 3 Anakapalle 

7.The learned Asst., Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1, the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

8.The learned defence counsel argued that PW.1 never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report and he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose only. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst, who issued Ex.P.3 Analysis Report and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

9.The point for determination is -

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. P O I N T:- As can be seen from the material available on record, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 arrested the accused on 2.2.2021 at about 4.40 p.m., at

Bayyavaram Railway gate, Kasimkota mandal while he was in possession of nine nip bottles of Andhra Gold Whisky 180 ml., each, and he seized the contraband under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report.

11.P.W.1 deposed about the apprehension of the accused, seizure of the property and drawing of samples from the contraband on 2.2.2021 under the cover of EX.P1 occurrence report as they could not secure independent witnesses. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record.

12.Here, in the present case, the only evidence available for the prosecution is that of

P.W.1 alone. There is no other independent witnesses are cited and examined by the prosecution to prove its case. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is situated in residential locality. When the scene of offence is situated in residential locality, naturally the independent witnesses would be available for P.W.1 to secure them as witnesses or mediators for the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband. But, he did not do so. Even PW.1 did not issue any summons to the surrounding people of the scene of offence to act as mediators. He did not issue any summons to the Village Revenue Officer, Village Revenue Assistant or any other respectable person of the locality requesting them to act as mediators. In the present case

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 4 Anakapalle 

on hand, P.W.1 failed to adhere to the mandatory provision of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. In a case between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The State of A.P., reported in 2009(4) A.P.L.J

Page 57, (H.C), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held that:

“When Police or Excise Police are conducting the search in a Colony or

at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are

bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They

must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators.

That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.” Therefore, non-observation of mandatory provision U/Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13.Admittedly, PW.1 is the official witness and interested witness to the prosecution case. No independent witness supported the case of the prosecution. Here, P.W.1 is

Investigating Officer of this case and he cannot be treated as independent witnesses. In the case of Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 641 A.P., the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held at para 6 that –

“On the sole self-serving testimony of de facto-complainant-cum-

Investigating Officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the

evidence of PW.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his

search on 5.7.2002, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly

erred in accepting the evidence of PW.1, without any corroboration. In

fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned

Trial Judge referring to Sec.134 of Evidence Act observed that as there

is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can

act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any

number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be

accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts

highly trustworthy and convincing. But, here this PW.1 being the

complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting

a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he

cannot be compared on par with a prosecutorix in a rape case or a

victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny

of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate

Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of PW.1 for

convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgment of

Courts below are liable to be set aside.”

14. Further, the Chemical Examiner was not cited as a witness in this case. He was not examined by the prosecution to prove that he issued Ex.P.3 chemical analysis report stating that M.O.1 is containing Indian Liquor.

15.Further, the entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 5 Anakapalle 

statement of the accused before the Police cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Superintendent), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: PW.1 – B. Sreenivasa Rao (P & E., Sub-Inspector, Anakapalle)

DEFENCE: None

No. EHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil Ex.P.1/2.2.2021Occurrence report. EX.P2/2.2.2021 Original FIR in Crime No.43/2021 of P & E., Station, Anakapalle. EX.P3/6.4.2021 Chemical Analysis report.

No. of MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample bottle of Andhra Gold Whisky.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI AMM/AKP

C.C.111/2023 (SEB., AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated: 21.4.2023 6 Anakapalle 

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.111/2023

01.Date of offence:2.2.2021

02.Date of Complaint :24.1.2023

03.Date of Apprehension of the :14.2.2023 accused

04. Release on bail :--

05.Commencement of trial:16.3.2023

06.Closure of trial:24.3.2023

07.Date of Judgment:21.4.2023

08.Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

09.Name of the complainant:The State, represented by P & E., Sub- Inspector, Anakapalle in Crime No.43/2021.

10. Name of the accused:Gorli Ramu, S/o. Kannayya, 28 yrs., Kapu, r/o. Vissannapeta village, Kasimkota mandal, Visakhapatnam.

11.Offence :U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Not guilty

14.Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended Act, 17/2020) and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charge. 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. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

C.C.1327/2022 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated.21.3.2023 1 Anakapalle

IN THE COURT OF THE XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - S. Vijaya Chandar, XI Addl., Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Friday, the 21 st day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.1327/2022

Between : State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Anakapalle.

...Complainant

And

Kona Ramayyamma, W/o. Rama Rao, 48 yrs., SC Relli, r/o.H.No.16-05, Thummapala street, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam. … Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. V. Rajarajeswari, learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri P. Hari Sreenivasa Rao and G. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Anakapalle laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.203/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell is as follows:

On 26.7.2021 at about 3.30 p.m., L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle along with his staff P.W.2 Kum. B. Shanthi, and

L.W.2 Smt. Ch.S.V. Padma, Enforcement Constables, DTF, Anakapalle on reliable information of illegal transportation of liquor bottles, proceeded to Thummapala junction, Anakapalle and when they reached Anjaneyaswamy temple in the said village, they noticed that the accused was standing there with a plastic cover. When the accused tried to escape from there, L.W.3. B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force,

Anakapalle stopped her and on the enquiry the accused stated that she was in possession of the liquor bottles. Then, L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District

Task Force, Anakapalle deputed P.W.2 to secure mediators, but as they could not secure mediators, L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle verified the plastic cover in the possession of the accused and found that it contained seven nip bottles of Good Friends’ Deluxe Whisky 180 ml., each. The accused confessed that she purchased those liquor bottles from various liquor shops for selling them for higher price and that she has no valid licence or permit to possess or sell those liquor bottles.

C.C.1327/2022 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated.21.3.2023 2 Anakapalle

Then, L.W.3- B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle seized the said liquor bottles from the possession of accused and drew samples under the cover of an occurrence report. Later, he handed over the accused, occurrence report, seized liquor bottles and samples at SEB Station, Anakapalle. P.W.1 Smt. L. Anuradha Devi,

Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Anakapalle registered EX.P1 occurrence report as a case in Crime No.203/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) and investigated into. During the course of investigation, she sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand. Later, she sent the sample bottles to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued EX.P2 Analysis report opining that the samples are Indian Liquor. Later, after completion of entire investigation,

P.W.1 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

3.The charge sheet was taken on to file for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020). On the appearance of the accused before this

Court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusations are read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the allegations. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment

Act, 17/2020) is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P2. The evidence of L.W.2 ChSV Padma, Enforcement Constable, DTF, Anakapalle, L.W.3

B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle, L.W.4 K.

Murali Krishna, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Anakapalle was given up by the

Prosecution in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. EX.P1 is the original FIR in Crime

No.203/2021 of SEB Station, Anakapalle and EX.P2 is Chemical Analysis report. No material object is marked on behalf of the prosecution.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to her in Telugu. The accused denied the said evidence and stated the same to be false.

Accused stated that she has no evidence to adduce in her defence.

6.Heard the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

C.C.1327/2022 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated.21.3.2023 3 Anakapalle

7.The point for determination is -

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) beyond reasonable doubt ?

8. P O I N T:- t The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused was in illegal possession of liquor bottles without any licence or permit to sell them on profit. On 16.7.2021 at about 3.30 p.m., L.W.3-B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force,

Anakapalle who lead the raid party, apprehended the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of an occurrence report in the presence of his staff i.e., P.W.2 and L.W.2

Smt. Ch.S.V. Padma Enforcement Constables, DTF, Anakapalle. The case of the defence is that of total denial.

9.As seen from the evidence on record, the important witness who conducted search and seizure in this case i.e., L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District

Task Force, Anakapalle was not examined by the prosecution. His evidence was given up by the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor in view of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 is the

Enforcement Constable, DTF, Anakapalle who accompanied L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle at the time of the apprehension of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles from his possession. But, this evidence of P.W.2 is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution as her evidence is only a supporting evidence. P.W.2 has not conducted any investigation in this case. So, her evidence is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution. If L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement

Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle is examined as a witness before this Court, then the evidence of P.W.2 can be considered as supporting or corroborating evidence to the evidence of L.W.3-B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Inspector, District Task Force,

Anakapalle. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of L.W.3-B. China Veera Raju,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle who is the Investigating Officer in this case, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be taken into consideration.

10.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, her evidence is only to the effect of registering the case, sending the accused to the Court for judicial remand and sending of the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Her evidence is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove that L.W.3 B. China Veera

Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle apprehended the accused

C.C.1327/2022 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated.21.3.2023 4 Anakapalle

on 26.7.2021 at 3.30 p.m.. at Anjaneyaswamy temple, Thummapala junction while she was in possession of seven nip bottles of Good Friends’ Deluxe Whisky 180 ml., each. It is important to note here that even the occurrence report under which, L.W.3 B. China Veera

Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task Force, Anakapalle arrested the accused and seized the property is not marked on behalf of the prosecution. Even the sample which was said to have drawn by L.W.3 B. China Veera Raju, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, District Task

Force, Anakapalle is also not marked by the prosecution. So, the non-marking of the occurrence report and material object is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is to be noted here that naturally, P.W.2 being the Enforcement Constable, DTF, Anakapalle would support the case of the prosecution. However, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act 17/2020) beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020). Accordingly, the accused is acquitted

U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.. for the offence U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Superintendent), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: P.W.1 – Smt. L. Anuradha Devi (Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Anakapalle) P.W.2 -Kum. B. Shanti (Enforcement Constable, DTF, Anakapalle)

DEFENCE: None

No. of EHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Nil EX.P.1/26.7.2021 Original FIR in Crime No.203/2021 of SEB Station, Anakapalle EX.P2/24.8.2021Chemical Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI AMM/AKP

C.C.1327/2022 (SEB, AKP) XI Addl Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Dated.21.3.2023 5 Anakapalle

IN THE COURT OF THE XI Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.1327/2022

01.Date of offence:26.7.2021

02.Date of Complaint:29.8.2022

03.Date of Apprehension of the:17.1.2023 accused

04.Release on bail:-- 05,Commencement of trial:23.1.2023

06.Closure of trial:21.3.2023

07.Date of Judgment:21.4.2023

08.Explanation for delay:The delay is due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

09.Name of the complainant: The State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Anakapalle in Crime No.203/2021

10.Name of the accused:Kona Ramayyamma, W/o. Rama Rao, 48 yrs., SC Relli, r/o.H.No.16-05, Thummapala street, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam. 11Offence:U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020)

12.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

13.Finding:Not guilty

14.Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020). Accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.. for the offence U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amendment Act, 17/2020) The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced, no property order is passed.

sd/- S. Vijaya Chandar,

XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle