Sri S. Vishnuvarma

C.C.No:359 of 2023 1 Dated:17-04-2025

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

PRESENT: S. VISHNU VARMA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

Friday, this the Seventeenth (17th) day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No: 359 of 2023

Crime No.17 6 of 202 1 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nagari.

Between:

State through its Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nagari. … Complainant

And:

S.Ragupathi, aged 31 years, S/o. Sukumar, R/o. 11-6, Karpaga Pillayar Koil Street, Arakkonam, Ranipeta District, Tamilnadu.… Accused

This case coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M.Rama Shanthi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.Nagarajan,LearnedCounsel for the accused and upon perusing the records and upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nagari, filed charge sheet against the accused in crime number 176 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “APE Act”).

C.C.No:359 of 2023 2 Dated:17-04-2025

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet, in a nutshell, are as follows:

(a)On 01.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Nagari along with staff conducted route watch at the cross of Thadukupeta D/wada Village, which is situated on Nagari to Tiruttani bus road of Nagari Mandal. At about 4.30 p.m., he found the accused coming in a Scooty by keeping one white colour plastic bag on petrol tank in between handle and seat. On seeing the uniformed officials, he tried to escape from the scene. LW3/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Nagari, caught hold the accused with the help of his staff. On enquiry, the person, who was caught hold of by the police, hesitatingly admitted that he was in possession of the liquor bottles, and hence, he tried to escape. On verification of the white colour bag, they found 101 Nips of Good Friends

Deluxe Whisky bottles of each 180 ml of Duty paid liquor bottles. On further enquiry, he revealed his name and identity particulars. On further enquiry about the liquor bottles, the accused confessed that, he brought the liquor bottles from different wine shops in Nagari for the purpose of selling the same at higher prices. LW3/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, had drawn 180 ml sample bottle from each brand to the bottles from the seized contraband for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of the special report. Basing on the special report, a case in Crime

No.176 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise

C.C.No:359 of 2023 3 Dated:17-04-2025

Act, 1968 was registered. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial custody. During the course of investigation, LW3/K.Bhaskar, Enforcement

Sub-Inspector, sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor. The Chemical Examiner, who analyzed the sample, opined that the sample is "Indian Made Liquor." After receiving the chemical analysis report and after completion of the investigation, LW4/P.Vardhana Devi, Sub-Inspector, SEB, Nagari, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of the accused before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under Section 239, Cr.P.C., by explaining in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W1 and P.W2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O1 were marked. Ex.P1 is the special report, dated 01.06.2021. Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.176/2021 of SEB Station, Nagari. Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis report, dated

C.C.No:359 of 2023 4 Dated:17-04-2025 30.07.2021. MO1 is the 180 ml sealed sample bottle of Gold Friends Deluxe

Whisky.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the records.

8.Now, the point that has arisen for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable under Section

34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond all

reasonable doubt?"

POINT:

9.To prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. P.W1 is the Excise

Constables, who participated in the raid conducted by PW2. PW2 is the then

Sub Inspector, SEB, Nagari, who conducted raid and arrested the accused.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. She argued that the accused is proved to be in possession of the liquor bottles and thereby, the prosecution

C.C.No:359 of 2023 5 Dated:17-04-2025 proved this case. Therefore, she prays to convict the accused.

11.Per contra, the Learned defence Counsel argued that the I.O. did not make any attempts to secure any independent witnesses despite ample scope to secure independent witnesses; that the expert was not examined on the side of the prosecution; that the staff, who accompanied the I.O., did not sign the special report/Ex.P1; that the accused is an innocent and is falsely implicated in this case; that no contraband was seized from his possession; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove this case against the accused.

Therefore, he prays to acquit the accused.

12.P.W1, Excise Constable, who assisted PW2 during the raid, would depose that on 01.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m., on the instructions of the

Inspector of Police, SEB, Nagari, PW2 secured him and LW1/E.N.Rambabu to conduct raids at Thadukupeta cross. They went there in a private vehicle.

When they reached the scene of offence, they noticed a two wheeler coming towards Nagari from Tiruttani. On seeing them, the driver of the said vehicle tried to escape. On suspicion, they chased and caught hold of the vehicle.

There was one person in that vehicle. They asked them as to why he tried to escape. It was TVS Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.TN73 AV 6621. There was a white color bag kept in between the handle and seat of the vehicle. On checking the bag, they found 101 Nips of Good friends fine whisky of 180 ml each meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh. On enquiry by PW2, that person

C.C.No:359 of 2023 6 Dated:17-04-2025 disclosed his name and identity particulars and he confessed that he purchased DPL bottles from various shops in Nagari to sell at higher price in his village i.e., Arakkonam, Tamil Nadu. PW2 drew sample from the above said 101 bottles by drawing one bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis.

Labels with signatures of the accused and IO were affixed on sample bottles.

LW1/E.N.Rambabu drafted special report at the scene on dictation of PW2.

Thereafter, the arrested accused and the seized contraband were taken to the police station and PW2 registered a case in Cr.No.176 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of the AP Excise Act, 1968.

13.PW2, Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted raid, would depose that on 01.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m., on the instructions of the Inspector of

Police, SEB, Nagari, he secured PW1 and LW1/E.N.Rambabu to conduct raids at Thadukupeta cross. They went there in a private vehicle. When they reached the scene of offence, they noticed a two wheeler coming from towards

Nagari from Tiruttani. On seeing them, the driver of the said vehicle tried to escape. On suspicion, they chased and caught hold of the vehicle. There was one person in that vehicle. They asked him as to why he tried to escape. It was TVS Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.TN73 AV 6621. There was a white color bag kept in between the handle and seat of the vehicle. On checking the bag, they found 101 Nips of good friends fine whisky of 180 ml each meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh. On his enquiry, that person disclosed his name and identity particulars and he confessed that he purchased DPL

C.C.No:359 of 2023 7 Dated:17-04-2025 bottles from various shops in Nagari to sell at higher price in his village i.e.,

Arakkonam, Tamil Nadu. He drew sample from the above said 101 bottles by drawing one bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis. Labels with signatures of the accused and mine were affixed on sample bottles.

LW1/E.N.Rambabu drafted special report at the scene on his dictation.

Thereafter, the arrested accused and the seized contraband were taken to the police station and he registered a case in Cr.No.176/2021 for the offence punishableunder Sec.34(a) of the AP Excise Act, 1968. He forwarded the accused to the court for remand. He sent the sample to the laboratory. He received the chemical analysis report on 30.07.2021. He destroyed the contraband on 02.07.2022 on receipt of the orders from the S.P., Chittoor. On completion of the investigation, LW4/P.Vardhana Devi, Enforcement Inspector, filed charge sheet in this case.

14.Now, coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles.

The investigating officer filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under

Sec.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. At this juncture, it is apposite to look into Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which reads as follows:

“34. Penalties for illegal import etc. - Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act,-(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant;”

C.C.No:359 of 2023 8 Dated:17-04-2025

15.The accused herein is charged for the offence of possession of duty paid liquor bottles. P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated with each other and deposed that they found 101 Nips of Good Friends Deluxe Whiskey Brandy, in possession of the accused. They also deposed that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused under the cover of the special report. The chemical analysis report under Ex.P3, prima facie, shows that the sample of the contraband is Indian made liquor. However, since this case is registered on the basis of the special report, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the seizure beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into Sec.59 of the A.P. Excise

Act, according to which P.W.2 is bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search, seizure and arrest. It implies that the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 of Cr.P.C., ought to have been followed by P.W.2 at the time of search and seizure of the contraband. As per Sec.100 of Cr.P.C., investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

17.In this regard, PW2 admitted that the scene of offence is situated on the highway of Tirupati - Tiruthani and it is a busy locality. He further categorically stated that he tried to secure independent witnesses, but nobody came forward. However, he did not note down the names of the persons who

C.C.No:359 of 2023 9 Dated:17-04-2025 refused to act as mediators. Except his statement that nobody came forward to act as mediator, there is no cogent evidence to the effect that he took effective steps to secure the independent witnesses. Further, PW2 admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that he could not secure independent witnesses as nobody came forward to act as mediators and also there is no mention of the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. Ex.P1 which is the crucial document based on which this case was registered should contain all the particulars of the proceedings conducted by P.W.2. Moreover, the attempts made by I.O. to secure independent witnesses are not well established in this case. Therefore, it leads to a doubt.

18.It is pertinent to mention that in Roop Chand V/s The State of

Haryana, reported in 1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court held thus:

"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join

C.C.No:359 of 2023 10 Dated:17-04-2025 the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.

19.The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sadhu Singh V.

State of Punjab , reported in (1997) 3 Crimes 55 (PH)held thus:

“Public witnesses may not be joined but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join public witnesses. A stereo type statement of non-availability of any public witnesses will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the services of public witness.”

20.This Court further relies on the decision in Gajamker Naryana

Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005 (3) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P), wherein the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in paragraph No.5 held thus:

“Herein the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of I.D liquor at Bypass Road, Rangadampally, near Siddipet. The evidence of P.W.1, the excise Sub- Inspector, discloses that there are residential houses at a distance of 25yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of P.W.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about three kilometers as per the evidence of P.W.3, the then excise Inspector, Siddipet. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the excise officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of P.W.1 nor that of P.W.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants

C.C.No:359 of 2023 11 Dated:17-04-2025 of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1, panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

21.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

Chaluvadi Masthana Rao Vs. The State of A.P., Rep. by PP (Criminal

Revision Case No.977 of 2009, decided on the 13th February, 2024), in Para

No.19, observed thus:

“19. Both P.Ws.2 and 4 deposed in their testimony on oath that when they were constituted route watch at Gajularega Junction on NH 43 road at about 09.00 p.m., noticed Tata India Car bearing Registration No.AP 35 T 4977 and seized the contraband from accused Nos.1 and 2. Whereas, Ex.P.1 shows that on some credible information went and held search proceedings under Section 165 Cr.P.C. In-order to do search proceedings, necessarily the Excise Officials are expected to follow Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which mandates the officials to secure the mediators, if no mediator is willing to be a witness to the search, then they have to secure any official witness for their search. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in this regard, prosecution miserably failed to prove that they followed Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. when they conducted search proceedings under Section 165 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the so-called seizure under the cover of Ex.P.3 is nothing but illegal.”

22.The admissions of the prosecution witnesses lead to the inference that there was ample scope for the investigating officer to secure mediators

C.C.No:359 of 2023 12 Dated:17-04-2025 from the nearby village or the persons moving on the said Road. Apparently, there is no evidence to prove that the investigating officer atleast took significant efforts to secure mediators. Further, it is the bounden duty of the investigating officer to prove such efforts made by him. The police proceedings also do not disclose the efforts made by PW2 in this connection.

Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution did not prove the efforts made by the investigating officer to comply with Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

23.The entire case of the prosecution is based on the special report and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the police officials. However, the special report contains the confession of the accused, which is hit by Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

24.It is trite law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public, the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person in accordance with law. In this case, the Investigating Officer had not proceeded against the persons, who refused to act as witnesses, under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the investigating officer would suggest the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after-thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.

25.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that though

C.C.No:359 of 2023 13 Dated:17-04-2025 the prosecution got marked the documents, it failed to prove the possession of the contraband by the accused, which forms the very basis for the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court finds that the charges against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

27.The property which is marked as MO1 i.e., 180 ml sealed sample bottle of Gold Friends Deluxe Whiskey is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

(Sd/- S.Vishnuvarma)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:P.M.DoraveluNone

P.W.2:K.Bhaskar

C.C.No:359 of 2023 14 Dated:17-04-2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Ex.P.1/PW2:Specialreport,datedNil 01.06.2021.

Ex.P.2/PW2:F.I.R. in Crime No.176/2021 of SEB Station, Nagari.

Ex.P.3/PW2:Chemical analysis report,

dated 30.07.2021.

Material objects:

MO1/PW2- 180 ml sealed sample bottle of Gold Friends Deluxe Whisky.

// True Copy // (Sd/- S.Vishnuvarma)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari. Nagari.

C.C.No:359 of 2023 15 Dated:17-04-2025

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

Calender in C.C.No: 359 of 2023

Crime No.17 6 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nagari.

Date of offence:01.06.2021

Date of complaint:01.06.2021

Date of taken on cognizance:15.11.2023

Date of appearance of accused:20.12.2023

Date of commencement of trial:16.01.2025

Date of close of trial:16.04.2025

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:17.04.2025

Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nagari.

Name of the Father’s nameAgeVillage,Occupation AccusedMandal/ District

S.RagupathiSukumar33 yearsArakkonam, RanipetaDriver District.

Nature of offence: Illegal possession of non duty paid liquor bottles.

Section of Law: Under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sec.34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

C.C.No:359 of 2023 16 Dated:17-04-2025

The property which is marked as MO1 i.e., 180 ml sealed sample bottle of Gold Friends Whiskey is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

// True Copy // (Sd/- S.Vishnuvarma)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Nagari.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 1 Dated 15-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), NAGARI.

Present: S.VISHNU VARMA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagari.

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.49 of 2014

Between:

1.K.J.Kumar, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Jayaram Naidu, residing at D.No.1-89, S.V.Nagar, Nagari.

2.A.Meganadham Mudaliar, aged about 60 years, (Died) S/o. Arjun Modaliar, residing at Ramanaidu Colony, Nagari.

3.P.Ramamurthy Yadav, aged about 62 years, S/o. Venkataswamy Mandadi, residing at Padmavathi Nagar, Nagari.

4.T.Ramesh, aged about 50 years, S/o. T.Subramanyam, residing at D.No.1-138, R/at Brahmin Street, Nagari.

5.S.R.Jayachandran, aged about 62 years, S/o. Ramaiah Naidu, residing at D.No.10-2-202, Guntakatta Street, Nagari.

6.S.N.Jagannadham, aged about 65 years, S/o. S.Nagarathnam Modaliar, Now residing at D.No.10-7-383, Ramanaidu Colony, Nagari. … Plaintiffs Nos.1, 3 to 6

And

1.P.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 74 years, S/o. Sadasiva Reddy,

O.S.No.49 of 2014 2 Dated 15-04-2025

residing at D.No.10-7-26, Reddyvari Street, Nagari.

2.P.Jyothi Reddy, aged about 52 years, S/o. P.Narasimha Reddy, residing at D.No.10-7-26, Reddyvari Street, Nagari.

3.P.Chiranjeevi Reddy, aged about 45 years, S/o. P.Narasimha Reddy, residing at D.No.10-7-26, Reddyvari Street, Nagari.

4.G.Ramesh, aged about 42 years, S/o. Kannaiah, residing at D.No.10-12-31, Nagari Dalithawada, Nagari.

5.R.Babu, aged about 45 years, S/o. Rajaiah, residing at D.No.10-12-99, Nagari Dalithawada, Nagari.

6.K.Babu Reddy, aged about 52 years, S/o. Manikya Reddy, residing at S.R.Nagar, Nagari.

7.N.P.Kumaresan, aged about 70 years,(Died) S/o. N.G.Perumal Modali, residing at 3-12, Arava Kapu Street, Nagari.

8.Michael Raj, aged about 42 years, S/o. Thesam Nadar, residing at D.No.10-1-1, Indira Nagar, Nagari.

9.Krishna Reddy @ Guddikandriga Krishna Reddy, S/o. Chinnabba Reddy, aged about 63 years, residing at D.No.10-3-99, Gandhi Nagari, Nagari. … Defendant 1 to 6, 8 & 9.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 3 Dated 15-04-2025

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 10.04.2025 in the presence of Sri K.Thyaga Raju, learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.1, 3 to 6 and Sri B.Raveendra, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 6, 8 & 9, and having treated the arguments on both sides as nil, as both sides were not ready, and upon perusing the records and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court made the following:

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

1.This suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 and Sec.26 of

CPC., praying this Court to grant permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from in anyway interfering with performing of Poolangi Seva i.e., Poola Alankarana Seva to Goddess Desamma and Oruguntalamma of

T.R.Kandriga and Oruguntapuram respectively by the plaintiff No.1 exclusively in his capacity as the Secretary of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, with his family in association with the members of Nagari Gangamma Jathara

Committee, followed by procession etc., throughout Nagari Town on 12.09.2014 [and all subsequent years of performing Gangamma Jathara and

Poolangi Seva in the month of September]1.

The case of the plaintiffs in-brief:-

2.In 2009, the Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee was formed to conduct the annual Jathara in Nagari. The committee members, including the

Secretary (Plaintiff No.1) and the President (Defendant No.7), in coordination with the villagers of Nagari Municipal Area limits, perform the Jathara. A 1Added as per the order, dated 20.10.2020 passed by this Court in I.A.No.193/2019 in O.S.No.49/2014.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 4 Dated 15-04-2025

memorandum was prepared and submitted to the District Registrar of

Societies, Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati, for registration of the said committee. The committee aims to perform the Nagari Gangamma Jathara annually in September and to conduct Hindu festivals and to do temple development activities. The Secretary (Plaintiff No.1) made a proposal to conduct the Jathara in September 2014 with the cooperation of the committee members and villagers. As per tradition, the Nagari Gangamma Jathara commenced on 02.09.2014. A “CHATU” was performed to initiate the festival.

The Goddess of Nagari Gangamma was installed in Nagari Chavadi circle on 09.09.2014, allowing the President, Secretary, and other committee members to offer Poojas and Prasadams to the Goddess. On 10.09.2014, the Goddess

Gangamma was taken in a procession through Nagari Town and Gagamma

Akkagaripeta before returning to Gangamma Temple.

3.On Friday, i.e., on 12.09.2014, the idols of the Goddesses

Oruguntalamma and Desamma will be brought to the Eswara Temple, Nagari, as they are the Grama Devatha of Nagari. The 1st plaintiff, who used to perform the Poolangi Seva (decorating the Goddesses) as the Secretary, has been doing so annually with his family, as accepted by the Committee members. After decorating the Goddesses, they will be taken in procession through Nagari Town and then to their respective temples. The accounts of expenses will be submitted annually and published in a booklet for the public, including residents of Nagari Town, Gangamma Akkagaripeta,

O.S.No.49 of 2014 5 Dated 15-04-2025

Oruguntapuram, T.R.Kandriga, and other Nagari Municipal residential areas.

The Nagari Gangamma Jathara is performed annually peacefully without any disruptions. The wife of the first plaintiff contested for the Chairperson post of

Nagari Municipality on behalf of the YSRCP Party and won. The ruling Telugu

Desam Party, her opponents, developed animosity towards her popularity. At the behest of those opposed to the 1st plaintiff and his family, the defendants prevented the plaintiffs and others from carrying out their duties. They also hindered the smooth functioning of the Jathara festival and proclaimed their intention to create obstacles. On 03.09.2014 and 08.09.2014, the plaintiff and others submitted representations to the Collector, Chittoor, Superintendent of

Police, Chittoor and other revenue officials, requesting police protection for the festival’s smooth functioning.

4.Neither the public nor the defendants are prevented from performing poojas at Nagari Gangamma Jathara on 09.09.2014, 10.09.2014, and 12.09.2014, but without hindering the plaintiff in performing the Poolangi

Seva on 12.09.2014. If the defendants are not prevented from disturbing the 1st plaintiff from performing the Nagari Gangamma Jathara festival proceedings, the purpose of filing the suit will be defeated, and the illegal objects of the defendants will be realized. Therefore, the present suit.

The case of the defendants in-brief:

5.The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. They denied all allegations of the plaintiffs and

O.S.No.49 of 2014 6 Dated 15-04-2025

contended that the suit is not maintainable as per Order I Rule 8 of the Civil

Procedure Code. The Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, a self-styled and created one, lacks legal sanctity to conduct the Jathara. The plaintiffs, who hold self-styled designations in the alleged memorandum of the society, are also not authorized to conduct the Jathara at Nagari. Defendants 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are not members of the committee. The signatures of defendants 6 and 7 were obtained by fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation. The objects mentioned in the said memorandum are not binding on the defendants, their family, or the villagers of Nagari, Kothapeta, T.R.Kandriga, and Oruguntapuram

Village. The memorandum presented by the plaintiffs is not registered, rendering the plaintiffs and their supporters in the committee ineligible to file the present suit.

6.The executive committee posts are created just before filing the suit to seize Nagari Ganga Jathara ceremonies from defendants 1 to 3, who have hereditary rights customarily prevail in the village.

7.Nagari’s annual Jathara, celebrating Goddess Gangamma, is regularly held in September. The festivities begin with “Chatu” on the penultimate Tuesday, followed by “Bali” and scattering of red rice, invoking the

Goddess for agricultural prosperity. “Kumbams” are offered on Wednesday, and villagers perform vows.

8.On Thursday, Goddess Desamma and Orugantalamma are taken in procession through Kothapeta, and the Goddesses reach their respective

O.S.No.49 of 2014 7 Dated 15-04-2025

temples on Friday night. This observance ensures the villagers’ safety and prosperity, while non-observance is considered a sign of future premonitions.

Disputes arose from the elections of the Panchayath Board, with residents of

Nagari and Kothapeta opposing each other. Nagari people obstructed

Sengundar community people from participating in the Jathara, and annoyed

Sengundar community worshippers, and removed Gangamma’s idol from the hut before Kothapeta Sengundars could offer Kumbams. In 1950, the father of the 1st defendant and others took control of festivals forming a Panchayath of exclusively Nagari villagers. In 1951, the Sengundars of Pudupeta attempted a separate Jathara, filing a petition under Sec.144 of Cr.P.C. before the Joint

Magistrate, Chandragiri. The Taluk Magistrate, Puttur, refused to prevent the

obstruction, leading the villagers of Kothapeta to file a writ petition in the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The Hon’ble High Court noted that parties’

rights should be determined in the Civil Court. The Sendungars community people filed a suit being O.S.No.45/1952 before the Hon’ble Subordinate

Court, Chittoor, against the father of the first defendant and others, and the

Hon’ble Court passed judgment and decree on September 17, 1953, granting

the Kothapeta villagers the right to perform a separate Jathara for Gangamma within their village limits. Since then, Nagari people have been performing a separate Jathara under the leadership of hereditary Reddies, the family of the first defendant. The Nagari Jathara Committee, allegedly led by the first plaintiff, attempted to seize the headship of the Jathara. At a public meeting

O.S.No.49 of 2014 8 Dated 15-04-2025

before “Chatu”, the villagers resolved to have the Jathara performed by the

hereditary Reddies. The first plaintiff, along with his henchmen, filed the present suit, with false allegations, creating false documents.

9.The first plaintiff introduced the Nagari MLA into the Jathara, colorizing it with political groups. The jathara was done peacefully for decades.

After filing the present suit and under the pretext of the Hon’ble court’s interim orders, the plaintiffs misrepresented facts, created rowdism, and stalled the function for six hours. The police, bound by an interim order, remained silent.

10.Citizens were allowed to perform Poojas after the first defendant’s family as a customary practice. However, the plaintiffs disrupted these Poojas by introducing politicians. The suit is tainted and may be dismissed.

11.After the amendment of the plaint to include “on all subsequent years”, the defendants filed additional written statement contending that originally, the suit was filed based on the cause of action of the year 2014, confining the prayer only for the year 2014, but an amendment was made to include “on all subsequent years”. The defendants contended that the cause of action only referred to performing Jathara and Poolangi Seva on September 9 and 12, 2014. This amendment changed the cause of action and introduced a new case without sufficient pleadings, violating Order VI Rule 2 of the Civil

Procedure Code. Therefore, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 9 Dated 15-04-2025

12.This court framed issues and again re-casted them. Finally, the following issues are settled for trial:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the present suit representing residents of Nagari Town and Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee.

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in performance of Poolangi seva exclusively by the plaintiff No.1 with his family in associate with the members of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, in his capacity as Secretary of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, followed by procession throughout Nagari Town on 12.09.2014 and on all subsequent years in the month of September.

(iii) To what relief?

13. Pending suit, the 7th defendant died. This suit being a suit for bare injunction and the suit was at the stage of arguments, this Court was of the view that impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased 7th defendant was not necessary.

14.In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the 4th plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 on their side.

Ex.A1 is the booklet of accounts published for the year 2013 by the Nagari

Gangamma Jathara Committee. Ex.A2 is the pamphlet containing expenditure details for Nagari Gangamma Jathara for the year 2009. Ex.A3 is the office copy of the letter, dated 08.09.2014 addressed by the 1st Plaintiff to the District

O.S.No.49 of 2014 10 Dated 15-04-2025

Collector, Chittoor and others. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the letter, dated 26.08.2014 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. Ex.A5 are the photographs (series 14 numbers) along with 5 CDs. Ex.A6 is the laminated photograph along with CD. One third party was examined as PW2 and no documents were marked through PW2. After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, defendants entered the witness box and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 on their side. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.45/1952 by the Hon’ble

Subordinate Court, Chittoor. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the Decree rendered in O.S.No.45/1952 by the Hon’ble Subordinate Court, Chittoor. The 6th defendant was examined as DW2 and no documents were marked through

DW2.

15.Despite giving sufficient opportunities for both the learned counsel, and passing conditional orders, they have not come forward to advance their arguments. Therefore, the arguments on the side of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants were treated ‘nil’. Considering the material available on record and paying attention to the facts and circumstances of the case, each issue is taken up for discussion hereunder.

ISSUE No.(i): Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the present suit

representing residents of Nagari Town and Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 11 Dated 15-04-2025

16.This suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from in anyway interfering in performing Poolangi Seva i.e.,

Poola Alankarana Seva to Goddess Desamma and Oruguntalamma of

T.R.Kandriga and Oruguntapuram respectively by the plaintiff No.1 exclusively in his capacity as the Secretary of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, with his family, in association with the members of Nagari Gangamma Jathara

Committee, followed by procession etc., throughout Nagari Town on 12.09.2014 and on all subsequent years of performing Gangamma Jathara and Poolangi Seva in the month of September.

17.The averments in the plaint would disclose that the suit is filed not only on behalf of the Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, but also on behalf of the residents of Nagari, Pudupet, Oruguntapuram and T.R.Kandriga which villages fall within the Nagari Municipal Area limits. Since the suit is filed in a representative capacity of not only the Nagari Gangamma Jathara

Committee, but also on behalf of the residents of Nagari, Pudupet,

T.R.Kandriga and Oruguntapuram, the plaintiffs would have obtained leave of this Court by following the procedure as contemplated under Order I Rule 8 of

C.P.C. However, the record discloses that the procedure contemplated under

Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C., is not followed. Moreover, PW1 and PW2 have categorically deposed that the Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee is not a registered body. Unregistered committee lacks the legal existence and is not

O.S.No.49 of 2014 12 Dated 15-04-2025

considered a juristic person. Therefore, the individuals representing the committee must have filed this suit potentially invoking Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C.

18.Moreover, the 1st plaintiff has not filed the present suit in his individual capacity, but it is filed on behalf of the alleged committee which is meant for the benefit of all the villagers within the Nagari Municipality Area.

Therefore, any relief that shall be granted in the suit will have impact on all the villagers of Nagari Municipality Area. Moreover, in Para No.3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves pleaded that this suit is filed in representative capacity. A duty is cast on the court to safeguard the interest of the persons, who are not present before the court, which is the main object behind Order I Rule 8 of

CPC. That being the case, the plaintiffs herein have no locus standi for filing the present suit without complying Order I Rule 8 of CPC. Accordingly, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the present suit representing the Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee members and residents of Nagari Municipality Area, without following the procedure enshrined under Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of

permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in performance of Poolangi seva exclusively by the plaintiff No.1 with his family in associate with the members of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, in his capacity as Secretary of Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee, followed by procession throughout Nagari

O.S.No.49 of 2014 13 Dated 15-04-2025

Town on 12.09.2014 and on all subsequent years in the month of September.

19.The relief sought for, on a plain reading, shows that the 1st plaintiff is trying to monopolize performing of Poolangi Seva. Indirectly, the 1st plaintiff and his family try to reserve the right of performing poolangi seva exclusively with their family. What cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly (quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum).

The plaintiff No.1 may not be the permanent Secretary of the Nagari

Gangamma Jathara Committee. The post of Secretary may be permanent, but the person holding the post may not be permanent. The persons holding the post are amenable to change. The prayer sought for in this suit is not in general to the committee, but specific to plaintiff No.1 and his family.

Assuming for a moment that the 1st plaintiff sought for the relief in his capacity as the Secretary of the Nagari Jathara Committee. Even then his family is in noway concerned to be permitted to perform Poolangi Seva, along with him as prayed for, as they are not committee members. Moreover, in future, any residents of Nagari or Pudupet, Kothapeta, T.R.Kandriga or Oruguntapuram can become the Secretary of the said Nagari Gangamma Jathara committee.

The relief sought for does not confine to the Nagari Gangamma Jathara committee to perform Poolangi Seva. On the other hand, it is sought for confining to a particular person i.e., plaintiff No.1 and his family to perform

Poolangi Seva. The Defendants herein are also the residents of Nagari.

O.S.No.49 of 2014 14 Dated 15-04-2025

Further, the Defendant No.7 is the President of the Nagari Jathara Committee.

Therefore, he cannot be restrained.

20.The temple is under the control of the Endowment Department.

But, the relief sought for in the suit does not fall within the ambit of Sec.87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987. Hence, this Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide this suit.

21.During cross-examination of PW1, PW1 has admitted that

Gangamma Jathara Committee is not a registered body; that the Desamma

Temple is managed by the Endowment Department, and that the said committee is not registered with Endowment Department even till now. PW1 has categorically admitted that Jathara was, once upon a time, performed by the Villagers of Nagari Town, T.R.Kandriga, Kothapeta and Oruguntapuram.

PW1 has also testified that the plaintiffs have no objection for performing

Poolangi Seva under the aegis of the Village elders including the plaintiffs.

PW2 during cross-examination testified that Jathara was performed by all the residents of Nagari including Sadasiva Reddy. Sadasiva Reddy is none other than the 2nd defendant/DW1 as he is also called as Jyothi Reddy, according to him. PW2 also admitted that the temple is under the control of the Endowment

Department. He also admitted that there is a committee appointed by the

Government for the said Goddess. He also admitted that the onus of

O.S.No.49 of 2014 15 Dated 15-04-2025

performing Jathara is on all the villagers or residents and not on a single person. In view of the above admissions made by PW1 and PW2, this Court is of the opinion that, the relief sought for in the suit, which is confined to a single person (plaintiff No.1) and his family members, cannot be granted. In fine, this

Court finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.(iii): To what relief?

22. In view of the finding to the issue Nos.(i) & (ii), this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.

23. In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- S.Vishnuvarma.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

P.W.1: T.RameshDW1: P.Sadasiva Reddy @ Jyothi Reddy

P.W.2: A.S.RaviDW2: K.Babu Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Booklet of accounts published for the year 2013 by the Nagari Gangamma Jathara Committee.

Ex.A2:Pamphlet containing expenditure details for Nagari Gangamma Jathara

O.S.No.49 of 2014 16 Dated 15-04-2025

for the year 2009.

Ex.A3:Office copy of the letter dated 08.09.2014 addressed by the 1st Plaintiff to the District collector, Chittoor and others.

Ex.A4:Office copy of the letter dated 26.08.2014 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor.

Ex.A5:Photographs along with 5 CDs. (Series 14 nos)

Ex.A6:Laminated photograph along with CD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1:Certified copy of the Judgment rendered in O.S.No.45/1952 by the

Hon’ble Subordinate Court, Chittoor.

Ex.B2:Certified copy of the Decree rendered in O.S.No.45/1952 by the Hon’ble Subordinate Court, Chittoor.

// True copy //

Sd/- S.Vishnuvarma.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Civil Judge (Junior Division), NAGARI.

NAGARI.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.49 of 2014 Dt.15-04-2025.

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

PRESENT: Smt.C.Janaki,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Puttur

Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

Friday, this the (11th) day of August, 2023.

Calendar Case No: 72 of 2021

Crime No.19 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nagari .

Between:

State represented by the Proh. And Excise Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nagari.

... Complainant

And:

A-1 A.Durga, W/o. Payinee, Caste Vanni Reddy, r/at Sathrawada ST Colony, Nagari Mandal

A-2 P.Subbamma, W/o. Ramalingam, Caste SC., R/at Sathrawada ST Colony, Nagri Mandal … Accused No.1 & 2

This case coming before me on 04-08-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri

M.Manivasakam learnedCounsel for the Accused No1 and Sri K.Velayudham learned counsel for Accused No2, and upon perusing the records and upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Police Station, has filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in crime No.19 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8E, of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet, in a nutshell, are as follows: On 03-02-2020 at about 05-30 AM as per ..2..

instruction of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tirupati, LW 3 along with the P & EI, ESTF, Tirupati with staff, on reliable information reached to

Satrawada ST Colony Cross situated on Sathrawada to Adavikothur bus road of Nagari Mandal and found two female persons carrying each one plastic can with their right hands on seeing vehicles they tried to escape and they detained one female, and another female escaped from the scene of offence.

Then the P &EI enquired about details of female person who escaped. Then she revealed her identity by name A.Durga and P.Subbamma. The Prohibition & Excise Inspector also enquired the mediators about the ran away persons.

They are also confirmed the same. Then the Prohibition &Excise Inspector verified the plastic cans, each white can 10 liters capacity containing with 10 liters ID arrack (Total 20 liters). Then LW3 drawn the sample of one 180 ML bottle from each can (total 2 sample bottles) for chemical analysis purpose sealed and labeled. The sample bottles as well as remaining property and affix identity slips. Then LW4 arrested the Accused (A1) after informing the grounds of arrest. The LW.3 seized the samples, property for taking further action under cover of pachanama drafted on the spot. After completion of investigation, the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, SEB, Nagari filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under

Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused

before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as

required under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

..3..

4.A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239, Cr.P.C., by explaining in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O1& MO.2 were marked. Ex.P1 is the Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.19/2020 of SEB Police Station.

Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis report. M.O1 & MO.2 is the sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now, the point that has arisen for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT: To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. P.W1 is the S.I., who participated in the raid and PW2 and PW3 are the mediators. PW4is the

Excise constable. PW5 is the investigation officer..

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, all the ..4..

prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be ID arrack and the accused is proved to be in possession of ID arrack. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case against the accused and hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to convict the accused.

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that though the prosecution examined PW2 and PW3, the mediators, but they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He further argued that the investigation officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., for search and seizure and Ex.P3 is doubtful and not proved through the expert. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove this case and thus, the accused be acquitted.

12.PW1, is the Sub Inspector on 03-02-2020 at about 05-30 am while himself and ESTF staff ie LW.5, LW.4 and LW6 conducted raid at Sathrawada

ST Colony cross when they reached there we saw two female persons in possession of one white plastic can each in standing position. On seeing us they tried to escape and they caught with the help of her staff one among them and on interrogation, she revealed her name and address particulars and she voluntarily confessed that she was in possession of ID arrack in plastic can and so she tried to escape and she revealed the name of the accused as Durgamma/A2 and asked LW.1/P.Gopi and LW.2/P.Suresh, who were present at the scene of offence to act as mediators and in their presence, verified the plastic can in the possession of accused and found 10 liters of ID arrack and found 10 liters of ID arrack in the can left by the ..5..

escaped person, seized the contraband, drawn two samples, sealed and labeled for chemical analysis purpose, arrested the accused under the cover of Panchanama, registered the case in Cr.No.19/2020 u/Sec.7-A r/w.8(E) of

A.P.P Act, produced the accused before the court for Judicial remand, sent the sample to chemical analysis and received the report and on 11-03-2020 arrested A-2 in front of her house, released A2 by giving station bail due to covid-19, sent the proposal for destruction of contraband.

13.PW2, and PW.3, the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

14.PW4, the Excise constable deposed that on 03.02.2020 at about 05.30a.m., on receipt of credible information to LW1, she along with LW4 and other staff went to Sthrawada ST colony and found two female persons, who tried to skulk away, but they caught hold and on verification, they found 10liters of ID arrack in plastic can and 10liters of ID arrack and on enquiry she was manufacturing and selling the ID arrack, LW4 arrested accused, seized the contraband, drawn two samples of 180ml of ID arrack under cover of special report/Ex.P1.

15.PW5, the Excise Circle Inspector deposed that on 03.02.2020 at about 05.30a.m., on receipt of credible information, he along with LW2 and other staff went to Sathrawda ST colony and found two female persons, who tried to skulk away, but they caught hold one person and on enquiry, she revealed her name, identity particulars and found 10liters of ID arrack in the plastic can and 10liters of ID arrack in the other can and on enquiry,she stated that she was manufacturing and selling the ID arrack, arrested A1 , ..6..

seized contraband, drawn samples of 180ml of ID arrack under cover of special report.

16. As this is the case U/Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that A1 and A2 were transporting ID arrack and were found in possession of 20liters of ID arrack and Police seized the said

I.D.arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of

Popanchanama/Ex.P1.

17.As per the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5, A1 and A2 confessed before them/ the police personnel that they prepared ID arrack and was found in possession of 20liters of ID arrack for selling the I.D. arrack and the same confession was reduced in the panchanama/Ex.P.1.Except the said confession of the accused before the police, there is no other material produced by the prosecution, which is not admissible, as the confession

before the police is hit under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.Further regarding the alleged seizure of contraband, the prosecution examined the mediators, i.e, PW2 and PW3, but they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW1 and PW4 admitted the suggestions put by defence counsel in the cross examination that the distance between the police station and scene of offence is about 5kms and the scene of offence is a busy locality and that there are 1000 houses in ST colony village, nearby the scene of offence. P.W.4 also deposed in the cross examination that they have to pass three villages to reach the scene of offence. PW1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 denied the suggestions put by defence counsel in their cross examination that they did not go to the place of offence and did not seize any contraband from the accused. As per section ..7..

23 of A.P. Prohibition act, 1995 and section 100 of Cr.P.C, any investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality. But it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that they did not secure the independent persons or inhabitants of nearby locality.

19.In a case, our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

20In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P in a judgment

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. cited in 2010 (1)

A.L.T. (Crl.) held in Para No: 32, “When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.”

21.In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In

para NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

22. In the present case on hand also, it can be seen from the record that during the raid participated by PW1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who were the police ..8..

officials, no independent witnesses have been secured or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence of P.W.1, PW4 and P.W.5, there are villages from where the independent persons can be secured as mediators, but no witnesses were summoned by the police personnel, to act as mediators and no proof of such act was brought on record. Thus, the sole testimony of the police personnels can not be relied on, to prove the alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. As such the seizure was not proved in accordance with law. Further more, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raid and who drafted the pamchanama and basing on the panchanama/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him only and he investigated the total case, which can not be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case.

23.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.7A r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

..9..

The property in CRP.No. 15/2021 which is marked as MO1 & MO.2 – sealed sample bottles of I.D. Arrack are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution :- Defence :-

PW1 : K.Bhaskar None PW2 : T.Gopi PW.3: T.A.Suresh

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 : Panchanama

Ex.P2 :F.I.R. in Crime No.19/2020 of SEB Police Station.

Ex.P3 :Chemical analysis report, dated 13.12.2021.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence : - NIL

Material Objects marked:

MO1& MO.2 – Sealed sample bottles of ID arrack.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

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

Calender in C.C.No: 72of 2021 in

Crime No.19 of 2020 of SEB Station Nagari.

Date of offence:03-02-2020 Date of complaint:03-02-2020 Date of taken on cognizance:23-01-2021 Date of appearance of accused:05-03-2021 Date of commencement of trial:30-05-2023 Date of close of trial:04-05-2023 Explanation for delay:No delay Date of sentence or order:11-08-2023 Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Police station.

Name of the Father’sAgeReligionVillage,Occupation AccusednameMandal/ District 1.A.Durga, Payinee53HinduSathrawada ST Colony,- yearsNagari Mandal 2.P.SubammaRamalingam48HinduSathrawada ST Colony, yearsNagari Mandal

Nature of offence: Illegal possession and selling of I.D. arrack .

Section of Law: Under Sec.7A r/w 8E, of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offencesUnder Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8E, of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. and accordingly they are acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The property in C.P.R.No.15 of 2021 which is marked as MO1 & 2– sealed sample bottle of I.D. Arrack is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

,

Principal Junior Civil Jude, Puttur

FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

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

PRESENT: Smt.C.Janaki,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Puttur

Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

Friday, this the (11th) day of August, 2023.

Calendar Case No: 33 of 2021

Crime No.315 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nagari .

Between:

State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nagari.

... Complainant

And:

S.Reeta, W/o. R.Sekhar, Aged 45 years, Caste SC R/at Vijayapuram, H/W., Vijayapuram Mandal Chittoor District. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 04-08-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri Mohamed

Haneefa, learnedCounsel for the accused and upon perusing the records and upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Police

Station, has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.315 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8B, of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet, in a nutshell, are as follows:

..2..

On 18-10-2021 at about 8-00 AM, during the raids conducted by the LW.1 along with staff raided at Ammagunta Cross which is situated on Vijayapuram to Kanakammasatram, Bus road of Vijayapuram Mandal. Found one female person keeping one white plastic can in her right hand on standing position, on seeking the uniformed officials she tried to escape. On suspension the

Lw.1 detained by her with help of staff, on enquiry about her escape she hesitatiningly admitted the she had possession of ID arrack in the white plastic can, Hence, she tried to escape. Then the LW1 for secure for mediators at scene of offence but in vain and deputed LW2 to secure mediators nearby Village Vijayapauram after 20 minutes LW.2 came back,

LW2 stated that VRA, VRO, Voluntaries and Secretary not available in village and village elders not came forward to act as a mediators than Lw.1 verified the whilte plastic can found it is 10 liters capacity its containing fully 5 liters of ID arrack with pungent odor. Further enquiry she revealed her name

S.Reeta. On enquiry about ID arrack she did not proper reply. Then the LW1 had drawn one 180 ML sample bottle filled with ID arrack from the contraband for chemical analysis purpose, then sample and remaining contraband were sealed and labled with proper attestation then LW.1 arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest, seized sample and remaining contraband under cover of special report drafted on the spot and served copy of the accused. After completion of investigation, the

Enforcement Inspector of Police, SEB Nagari filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under

Section 7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

..3..

On appearance of the accused before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under Section 239, Cr.P.C., by explaining in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW2 were examined, Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O1 were marked. Ex.P1 is the police proceedings, dated 18.10.2021. Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. in Crime

No.315/2021 of SEB Police Station. Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis report,

Ex.P4 is the and Ex.P4 is the destruction panchanamas. M.O1 is the sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now, the point that has arisen for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT: To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked. P.W1 is the Constable, who participated in the raid and PW2 is the then Head Constable and ..4..

Inspector of Police of SEB Police Station, who conducted raid and filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, all the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be ID arrack and the accused is proved to be in possession of ID arrack. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case against the accused and hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to convict the accused.

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and the investigation officer did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy locality. He further argued that the investigation officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., for search and seizure and Ex.P3 is doubtful and not proved through the expert. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove this case and thus, the accused be acquitted.

12.PW1, is the Constable, on 18-10-2021 at about 8-00 am on receipt of credible information H.C/Lw.3 he along with the other staff went to

Ammagunta Cross in Vijayapuram Mandal. On reaching the scene, we found one female with a plastic cans. On seeing she tried to skulk away. We caught hold of they tried to secured mediators but nobody come forward. On enquiyr of LW3 the accused revealed her name and identitiy particulars. On verification, we found 5 liters of ID arrack in plastic in possession of the ..5..

accused. On enquiry she stated that she was selling the ID arrack. LW.3 draw one sample from the above said can to 18- ML quarter bottle labels and signatures of the accused and I.O were affixed on the sample bottle. LW 3 arrested accused and seized the contraband under cover of police proceedings. He have signed the police proceedings and affixed his signature.

13.PW2, the then Head Constable of SEB Nagari P.S who conducted raid, deposed that on 18-10-2021 at about 8-00 am on receipt of credible information. along with the other staff went to Ammagunta Cross in

Vijayapuram Mandal. On reaching the scene of offence, we found one female with one plastic can. On seeing us she tried to skulk away. We caught hold her. We tried to secured mediators but no come forward. On enquiry of accused revealed her name and identity particulars. On verification, they found 5 liters of ID arrack in plastic can in possession of the accused. On enquiry she stated that she was selling the ID arrack. and she registered a case in Cr.No.315/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.7B r/w 8B of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

14.PW3, the then SEB Inspector of Police, at about 8-00 am on receipt of credible information, she along with PW1 and PW2 went to Ammakunta Cross.

On reaching the scene of offence, they found one lady. On seeing us he tried to skulk away. They caught hold her. On enquiry the accused revealed her name and identity particulars and they found 05 liters of ID arrack in the plastic can, and she arrested accused seized contraband and drawn one sample of 180ML of ID arrack under cover of special report. She signed in the mediator report/ExP1 and a case in Cr.No.315/2021 u/Sec. 7B r/w 8B of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was registered, ..6..

produced the accused before the court for judicial custody, sent the samples for chemical analysis along with letter of advice, obtained chemical analysis report, got destroyed the seized contraband as per the proceedings of the commissioner and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. As this is the case U/Sec.7B r/w 8A, 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused prepared ID arrack and she was in the possession of 05 liters of I.D. arrack and police seized the said

I.D.arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of police proceedings.

16.As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the accused confessed

before them/ the police personnels that he prepared and selling the I.D.

arrack and the same confession was reduced in the police proceedings/Ex.P.2.

Except the said confession of the accused before the police, there is no other material produced by the prosecution, which is not admissible, as the confession before the police is hit under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

17.Further regarding the alleged seizure of contraband, PWs 1 to 3 deposed in corroboration with each other that accused was found in possession of 05liters of ID arrack at the scene of offence. PW1 to PW3 categorically admitted that Ammakunta cross in busy locality, but they did not try to secure mediators from any of the villages even though the scene of offence is a busy locality. PW1 to PW3 denied the suggestions put by defence counsel in their cross examination that they did not go to the place of offence and did not seize any property from the accused. As per section 23 of A.P.

Prohibition act, 1995 and section 100 of Cr.P.C, any investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants ..7..

of the locality. But it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that they did not secure the independent persons or inhabitants of nearby locality.

18.In a case, our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

19.In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P in a judgment

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. cited in 2010 (1)

A.L.T. (Crl.) held in Para No: 32, “When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.”

20.In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In

para NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

21.In the present case on hand, the prosecution has not examined any such independent witnesses in this case, even though there is possibility for

PW3 to secure them at the scene of offence. As per the admission of PW3 and also as per the contents of Ex.P1, it is apparent that the scene of offence is a busy locality, which leads to the inference that there is every possibility ..8..

to secure the villagers to act as mediators, but Ex.P1 does not show any such steps taken by him to secure local people as mediators. As such the seizure was not proved in accordance with law. Further more, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the police proceedings and basing on the police proceedings/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him and he investigated the total case, which can not be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case.

22.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The property in C.P.R.No.130 of 2022 which is marked as MO1 – sealed sample bottle of I.D. Arrack is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- C.Janaki

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

..9..

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution :- Defence :-

PW1 : N.Valli None PW2 : M.Mohan Reddy PW.3: P.Vardhana Devi

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings, dated 18-10-2021

Ex.P2 :F.I.R. in Crime No.315/2021 of SEB Police Station.

Ex.P3 :Chemical analysis report, dated 13.12.2021.

Ex.P4 : Destruction Panchanam

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence : - NIL

Material Objects marked:

MO1 – Sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

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

Calender in C.C.No: 33 of 2023 in

Crime No.315 of 2021 of SEB Police Station Nagari

Date of offence:18-10-2021 Date of complaint:18-10-2021 Date of taken on cognizance:2-2-2023 Date of appearance of accused:17.03-2023 Date of commencement of trial:28-07-2023 Date of close of trial:04-08-2023 Explanation for delay:No delay Date of sentence or order:11.08-2023 Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Police station.

Name of the Father’sAgeReligionVillage,Occupation AccusednameMandal/ District

S.ReetaR.Sekhar45HinduVijayapuram H/W.Coolie yearsVijayapuram Mandan.

Nature of offence: Illegal possession and selling of I.D. arrack .

Section of Law: Under Sec.7B r/w 8B, of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offencesUnder Section 7B r/w 8B, of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence 7B r/w 8B, of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.and accordingly he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The property in C.P.R.No.130 of 2022 which is marked as MO1 – sealed sample bottle of I.D. Arrack is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

// True Copy

Sd/- C.Janaki

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nagari Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nagari FAC- Junior Civil Judge-cum- FAC- Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Nagari.

Nagari.

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

PRESENT: Smt.C.Janaki,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Puttur

Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nagari.

Friday, this the (11th) day of August, 2023.

Calendar Case No: 103 of 2023

Crime No.295 of 2022 of Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari UPS.

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari UPS.

... Complainant

And:

A-1 P.Ramalingam, aged 52 years, S/o. Late Pichaiah

A-2 M.Vanitha, aged 44 years, W/o. M.Amavasya. (Both are residence of Satrawada SC Colony, Nagari Town and Municipality. … Accused No.1 & 2

This case coming before me on 04-08-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri M.Babu learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the records and upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police, Nagari UPS., has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.295 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section under Sec. 7(B) r/w.8(A) (B) © of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet, in a nutshell, are as follows: On 27-09-2022 at 6-45 AM at about 6-00 am on the way of Satrawada ST Colony, Nagari town and municipality, Chittoor District, ..2..

the Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nagari found the Accused Nos.1 and 2 by keeping two cans, who tried to escape, but they were caught and on interrogation in the presence of Lws.1 and 2, they jointly confessed that both are living by coolies works, but their earnings are not sufficient to lead their family expenses and illegally prepared distilled the ID arrack and selling of ID arrack in the premises of village and transporting the same to sell the same.

The Enforcement Inspector drawn one 180ml sample bottle filled with Id arrack from the contraband for chemical analysis, sealed and labeled, arrested accsued, sezied the sample and remaining contrabnd under cover of special report. Basing on the special report, a case in Cr.No.315 of 2021 under Section 7B r/w. 8/a, 8B of APP Act. After completion of investigation, the The Sub Inspector of Police Nagaru UPS filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7(B) r/w.8(A) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sec.7B r/w.8A, 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under Section 239, Cr.P.C., by explaining in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec. 7(B) r/w.8(A) (B) (C)of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O1& MO.2 were marked. Ex.P1 is

Registered a Copy to all the concerned officers and took up investigation.

..3..

Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.295/2022 of Nagari UPS.. Ex.P3 is the

Letter of Advise. Ex.P-4 is the Chemical Analysis Report M.O1 & MO.2 are the sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported ‘no defence evidence’.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now, the point that has arisen for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT: To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked. P.W3 is the H.C., conducted raid and filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, all the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be ID arrack and the accused is proved to be in possession of ID arrack. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case against the accused and hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to convict the accused.

..4..

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and the investigation officer did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy locality. He further argued that the investigation officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., for search and seizure and Ex.P3 is doubtful and not proved through the expert. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove this case and thus, the accused be acquitted.

12.PW1 deposed that on 27-09-2022 at about 6-45 am on receipt of credible information HC/LW.6 he along with the other staff Lws.6 went to

Satravada ST Colony, On reaching the scene of offence, we found two persons ie one female and one male persons with tow plastic cans. On seeing us they tried to skulk away. We caught hold of them. We secured mediators. On enquiry by LW.6 they revealed their name and identity particulars. On verification, we found 35 liters of ID arrack in one plastic can and 10 liters of ID arrack in another plastic can in possession of the accused.

13.PW2 is the mediator who deposed that on 27.09.2022 at about 6.45 am , on request of police he along with LW2/Kesavulu went to Satravada ST

Colony and found two persons and on enquiry by LW.6 they revealed their name and identity particulars and found 35 liters of ID arrack in one plastic can and 10 liters of ID arrack in another plastic can in possession of the accused and stated that they were manufacturing the ID arrack and selling the same, LW.6 has drawn two samples from the above said cans to 180ML bottles, arrested accused and the seized contraband under cover of mediator report in the presence of mediators.

..5..

14. PW.3 is the Head Constable on 27-09-2022 at about 6-00 am on receipt of credible information, he along with the other staff ie PW1, LW4/WPC went to Sathrawada ST Colony in a private vehicle and found two persons, who tried to skulk away, but they caught hold them, secured mediators/PW2 and LW2 and on enquiry, A1 and A2 revealed their name and identity particulars, on verification, found 35 liters of ID arrack in one plastic can and 10 liters of ID arrack in another can and they stated that they were manufacturing and selling the ID arrack arrested accused/A1 and A2, seized contraband and drawn two samples of 180 ML of ID arrack under cover of mediator report and basing on strength of Ex.P-1 a registered a case in

Cr.NO.295/2022 u/Sec.7-B r/w.8(A), 8(B) and 8(c) of APP Act, submitted FIR copy to all the concerned officers and took up investigation and after completion of investigation LW7 filed charge sheet

15. As this is the case U/Sec.7B r/w 8A, 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused prepared ID arrack and he was in the possession of 10 liters of I.D. arrack and police seized the said

I.D.arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of police proceedings.

16.As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the accused confessed before them/ the police personnel that he prepared and selling the I.D. arrack and the same confession was reduced in the mediator report/Ex.P.1.Except the said confession of the accused before the police, there is no other material produced by the prosecution, which is not admissible, as the confession

before the police is hit under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

..6..

17.Further regarding the alleged seizure of contraband, PWs 1 to 3 deposed in corroboration with each other that A1 and A2 were found in possession of 45liters of ID arrack at the scene of offence. The prosecution examined PW2 who is independent mediator, but however he is resident of

Gundragukuppam, but not at the scene of offence. So, he is apparently not the local mediator. PW1 categorically admitted that there are 50 houses in

Satravada ST colony and the distance between the police station and scene of offence is 6kms. PW3 deposed in the cross-examination that he has written

Ex.P1/panchanama and he did not issue written summons to the mediators.PW1 and PW3 denied the suggestions put by defence counsel in their cross examination that they did not go to the place of offence and did not seize any property from the accused. As per section 23 of A.P. Prohibition act, 1995 and section 100 of Cr.P.C, any investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality. But it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that they did not secure the independent persons or inhabitants of nearby locality.

18.In a case, our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

19.In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P in a judgment

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. cited in 2010 (1)

A.L.T. (Crl.) held in Para No: 32, “When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of ..7..

independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.”

20.In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In

para NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

21.In the present case on hand, the prosecution has not examined any such independent witnesses in this case, even though there is possibility for PW2 to secure them at the scene of offence. As per the admission of PW3 and also as per the contents of Ex.P1, it is apparent that the scene of offence is within the village of scene of offence which leads to the inference that there is every possibility to secure the villagers to act as mediators, but Ex.P1 does not show any such steps taken by him to secure local people as mediators. As such the seizure was not proved in accordance with law.

Further more, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the police proceedings and basing on the panchanamas/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him and he investigated the total case, which can not be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case.

22.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the ..8..

benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

The property in CRP.No. 74/2023 which is marked as MO1 & MO.2 – sealed sample bottles of I.D. Arrack is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution :- Defence :-

PW1 : D.Gavaskar None PW2 : T.V.Charan Kumar PW.3: K.Lokanadhan

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings dated 18.10.2021

Ex.P2 :F.I.R. in Crime No.295/2022 of Nagari Police Station.

Ex.P3 :Letter of Advise.

Ex.P-4: Chemical analysis report.

..9..

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence : - NIL

Material Objects marked:

MO1& MO.2 – Sealed sample bottles of ID arrack.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nagari.

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

Calender in C.C.No: 103/2023 in

Crime No.295 of 2022 of Nagari Police Station.

Date of offence:27-09-2022 Date of complaint:27-09-2023 Date of taken on cognizance:18-03-2023 Date of appearance of accused:19-05-2023 Date of commencement of trial:04-08-2023 Date of close of trial:04-08-2023 Explanation for delay:No delay Date of sentence or order:11-08-2023 Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari Police station.

Name of the Father’s nameAgeReligioVillage,Occupation AccusednMandal/ District 1.P.RamalingamLate Pichaiah52HinduSatrawada SC Colony, Nagari– Town and Municipality. years 2.M.VanithaW/o.M.Amavasya44HInduSatrawada SC Colony, Nagari-- Town and Municipality. years

Nature of offence: Illegal possession and selling of I.D. arrack .

Section of Law: Under Sec.7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offencesUnder Section 7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7B r/w 8A, 8B & 8C of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and accordingly he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The property in C.P.R.No.74 of 2021 which is marked as MO1 – sealed sample bottle of I.D. Arrack is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

// True Copy//Sd/- C.Janaki Priincipal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Priincipal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Nagari.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Nagari

.