Shaik Faizunnisa

Fair1CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Sullurpeta.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.266/2021

State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Sullurpeta.… Complainant

Vs.

Rayapu Sivaiah, S/o Srinivasulu, aged about 22 years, Caste: Harijana, R/o Kotapoluru east,

Sullurpeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 01.08.2022 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Sullurpet filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.10/2020 for the offence

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

2. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No.10/2020 of

Prohibition & Excise Station, Sullupret for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act is that:

On 03.03.2020 the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet along with his staff proceeded in a Government hired vehicle bearing No.AP-31-TV-5707 to conduct raids for detecting excise offences.

That they reached Mannarupoluru Cross road south side, Sullurpeta.

There they found one male person was standing by holding white plastic bag and on seeing the police, he tried to flee away. That Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Sullurpet with the assistance of his staff stopped him and on enquiry he stated that the bag contains the liquor bottles. That Prohibition and Excise Inspector

Fair2CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 requested the gathering people to act as mediators and then two persons came forward to act as mediators.

In the presence of mediators the bag was opened and found 09 bottles of

Old timer Deluxe Whisky – 180 ml each. In the presence of mediators the person was enquired who gave his identity as accused and that he purchased the two liquor bottles each one from each of the Government wine shops at

Sullurpeta.

That Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet has drawn one sample bottle to send for chemical analysis. The remaining bottles were kept in the same bag and seized by affixing identity slips on the sample bottle as well as on the seized contraband.

The grounds of arrest were informed to accused and the mediators report was written and the property was seized under it.

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet has registered the above crime and took up investigation, send the sample bottle for chemical analysis and received opinion in RC No.756/2020, dt.28-04-2020 opining that it is Indian

Liquor. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution to prove its case, got examined PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 was got marked. The evidence of LW5/T. Venkata Krishnaiah is closed as Death Certificate of him is filed. The evidence of LW3/Sk.

Nazeemuddin, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Sullurpeta was given up by learned Assistant Prosecutor. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

4. The investigation in this case commenced under the mediators report which is marked as Ex.P2 through PW4.

The brief contents of Ex.P2 is that-

Fair3CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

On 03-03-2020 PW5 along with his staff went for conducting raids and at 2.45 p.m. reached Mannarupoluru Cross road south side, Sullurpeta and found one male person was standing by holding white plastic bag. The officials have detained him and on enquiry, he stated that the bag contains the liquor bottles.

That he secured two persons to act as mediators from the gathered people there and in their presence the person on enquiry gave his identity as accused.

That the bag was opened and found 09 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whisky – 180 ml each for sale in Andhra Pradesh only.

That on further enquiry, the accused confessed that he purchased the two bottles each from each Government shop in Sullurpeta. PW5 has drawn one sample bottle to send for chemical analysis. The remaining bottles were kept in the same bag and by affixing the identity slips on the sample bottle and seized contraband. Hence, the mediators report.

5. PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 are the official witnesses. PW.3 is the mediator.

6. PW1 deposed that on 03-03-2020 at 4.00 p.m. Prohibition and Excise

Inspector, Sullurpet along with him, LW2-T. Venkateswarlu, LW3-Shaik

Nizamuddin and LW4-Y. Mohan, Excise Officials went to Mannarpoluru road.

That they observed one person holding one white bag in his right hand and on enquiry he stated that it contains liquor bottles. That they secured LW5-T.

Venkata Krishnaiah and LW6-P. Nagaraju to act as mediators.

That in their presence, the bag was opened and found nine bottles of Old

Timer Deluxe Whisky of 180 ml each. That the person on enquiry gave his identity as accused. That the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet has drawn one sample bottle to send for chemical analysis and remaining bottles were kept in the same bag. That upon dictation of Prohibition and Excise

Inspector, mediators report was written by Y. Mohan, Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Fair4CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

Inspector, Sullurpeta.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that the mediators report does not contain the name of officials who accompanied LW7-Prohibition & Excise

Inspector and his name also does not reflect in mediators report as he accompanied to the scene offence. He deposed that they reached the scene of offence by 2.45 p.m. But in his chief-examination, he himself stated that they went to the scene of offence by 4.00 p.m. He deposed that he has not filed any proof that he went to scene of offence on the alleged date. In the cross- examination, he deposed that at the scene of offence they secured mediators at holy cross circle and the scene of offence is at the holy cross. Whereas in his chief-examination, he deposed that they observed one male person at

Mannarpoluru road from NH5. He admitted that mediator report does not contain the names of mediators. He admitted that the first page of mediators report does not contain any signature. This creates doubt whether they really went to the scene of offence and secured the mediators at the scene of offence.

He admitted that there are serial numbers and batch numbers in mediators report. He cannot tell the serial number and batch number of the liquor bottles.

He cannot tell the details of the bag. The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

7. PW2 deposed in chief examination on the same lines with that of PW1 except the timings that they reached the scene of offence. PW1 deposed that on 03-03-2020 at about 4.00 p.m. the Prohibition and Excise Inspector along with himself, LW2-T. Venkataswarlu, LW3-Shaik Nizamuddin, LW4-Y. Mohan, excise officials went to Mannarpoluru road from NH5. Whereas PW2 deposed that on 03-03-2020 at about 2.45 p.m. the Prohibition and Excise Inspector along with himself, PW1, LW3-Shaik Nizamuddin, LW4-Y. Mohan, excise officials went to

Fair5CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

Mannarpoluru road from NH5. It creates doubt in the mind of the court that whether really PW1 and PW2 went to the scene of offence.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that mediators report does not contain that he accompanied the officials to scene of offence and details of officials who accompanied him. He has not filed any proof that he went to the scene of offence on the alleged date. He admitted that the details of mediator not mentioned in mediators report. He cannot tell the serial number and batch number of the seized liquor bottles and they were torn on the bottles. The same is not mentioned in the mediators report. He cannot tell the details of the bag.

The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

8. PW3 who is the mediator deposed that no proceedings were conducted in his presence ever and he has signed at the instance of police and identified his signature as Ex.P1. He denied the suggestion that police in his presence arrested the accused and seized the property. Hence, the evidence of PW3, who is the mediator and punch witness, has not supported the prosecution case.

9. PW4 in his chief examination deposed on the same lines with that of

PWs.1 and 2 and that he has not mentioned time when they went to scene of offence.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that they started from Excise Station from 9.00 a.m. He admitted that number of places they examined is not mentioned in Ex.P2. He admitted that the details of officials is not mentioned in

Ex.P2. He has not filed the record that he was present on the alleged date. The exact scene of offence is road from NH5 leading to Mannarpoluru. He admitted that the details of mediators are not mentioned in Ex.P2. He admitted that in the

Ex.P2 it is mentioned as belongs to Andhra Pradesh. He admitted that there is

Fair6CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 no mention of serial number, batch number, date of seized liquor bottles. He admitted that there is no signature of anyone in the first page of Ex.P2. The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

10. PW5 who is the another Excise official deposed that on 03-03-2020 himself along with his staff conducted raids around Sullurpeta and Tada. At 2.45 p.m. they reached Mannarpoluru Cross road and they observed one male person holding white bag in his right hand. That they detained the person and on enquiry, the person stated that the bag contains liquor bottles. That from the persons who gathered there, LW5-T. Venkata Krishnaiah and PW3 came to act as mediators. But the said PW.3 has not supported the prosecution case for the reasons best known to him and also does not prove the mediators report.

In the presence of mediators, the bag was opened and found nine bottles of Old Timer Deluxe Whisky 180 ml each. That he has drawn one sample bottle to send for chemical analysis. That the person gave his identity as accused. The grounds of arrest were informed to accused.

That he registered Ex.P2 as a case under Ex.P3/FIR. That he issued FIR to all concerned, issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused, sent the sample bottle under letter of advice under Ex.P4, receiving chemical analysis report under Ex.P5. Through him, MO.1 was marked.

PW5 is the official who detected the crime as well as the investigating officer. It is settled law in 2003 Vol.1 ALD Criminal Page 13 that any official who detected the crime cannot be the investigating officer too.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that it is not mentioned in mediators report as to places where they went before reaching scene of offence as part of raids. He adds that it is mentioned in remand report and CD. He admitted that

Fair7CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 the details of officials who accompanied to scene of offence are not mentioned in

Ex.P2/mediators report. He admitted that the details of mediators are not mentioned in mediators report. He has not issued any written requisition to act as mediators. It is the version of defence that whether really the officials went to the alleged place.

The serial number, batch number and manufacturing date are not mentioned in Ex.P2. He admitted that there is no any signature of any persons in the first page of mediators report. He has enquired into the shops from where accused purchased but no abstract report is filed. He admitted that there shall be serial number and batch number. The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

11. From the available evidence on record, the mediator PW.3 has not supported the prosecution case and the version of other official witnesses PWs.1 and 4. Hence, the mediators report is not proved from the evidence of PW.3.

The evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5, who are the interested official witnesses and whose version is not supported by the independent mediator PW.3, is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. That in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses, the version of interested official witnesses could not be believed. Simply by producing M.O.1 does not prove the prosecution case as the mediator who is punch witness himself has not supported the prosecution case. Further, there are differences in the interested official witnesses with regard to place of scene of offence and as to reaching of scene of offence. Hence, for the above discussion, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

This point is answered against the prosecution for the reasons discussed above. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Fair8CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

12. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as required

Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 one sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Sullurpet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution for Defence

P.W.1 : K. Penchalaiah, the then, Prohibition& -- NONE –

Excise Constable, Sullurpeta

P.W.2 : T. Venkateswarlu, the then, Excise Constable, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Sullurpeta.

PW.3 : P. Nagaraju.

PW.4 : Y. Mohan, the then, Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector,

Sullurpeta.

PW.5 : R.U.V.S. Prasad, the then, Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector,

Sullurpeta.

Documents marked

For prosecution For defence

Ex.P.1:- The signature of PW3 in Mediators Report. -- NIL --

Ex.P.2:- Mediators report.

Ex.P.3:- FIR in Cr.No.10/2020 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Sullurpeta.

Ex.P.4:- Letter of advise.

EX.P5:- Chemical analysis report.

Material objects marked

MO-1 –One Sample Bottle

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet. //True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET.

Fair9CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/Apprehen-releaseCommenceclose ofsentence/ complaintsion ofon bail- ment oftrialorder accusedtrial 03.03.2003.03.20­­­­06.06.2221.07.2210.08.22 Explanation for the delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 01.09.2021 and posted for appearance of accused. On 12-01-2022 on appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him. On 09.03.2022 a charge was framed against the accused and posted for trial. On 06.06.2022 PWs.1 and 2 were examined.

On 08.06.2022 PW3 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 and on the same day, death certificate of LW5/T. Venkata Krishna filed. On 11-07-2022 PW4 was examined and got marked Ex.P2. On 16.06.2022 the evidence LW3/Sk.

Nazeemuddin, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Sullurpeta given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 21-07-2022 PW5 was examined and got marked

Exs.P3 to P5 and MO1 and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 22.07.2022 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 22.07.2022 and 01.08.2022 heard the arguments. On 10.08.2022 judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.266/2021 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Complainant : The State Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet.

Description of the Accused : Rayapu Sivaiah, S/o Srinivasulu, aged about 22 years, Caste: Harijana, R/o Kotapoluru east, Sullurpeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Offence:U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offence.

Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 one sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

Fair10CC.No.266/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class

SULLURPET

To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.

Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge,

NELLORE

Calendar Case No.:CC.No.266/2021 Date o f Judgment:10.08.2022 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received //True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

Fair 1 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS ::

SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Sullurpet

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.283/2019

State: Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpeta Police Station … Complainant

Vs.

Paccha Srihari, S/o Ramanaiah, aged about 37 years, caste by Kamma, Pokkandla Village, Sydapuram Mandal, R/o Mypadu gate, 2nd street, Maruthi Nagar, Nellore, driver of

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-26-Z-0235. ... Accused

Deceased:- Unknown male aged 50-55 years.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 10.08.2022 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M. Sudarsana Rao, Counsel

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered

the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpeta Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.215/2019 for the offence U/Sec.304(A)

IPC.

2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No.215/2019 of Sullurpeta

Police station is that:

The VRA, Sullurpeta gave report alleging that on 23-08-2019 at 01-40 p.m. one unknown male person of age between 50 to 55 going on Guntur road turning near

Ayyappa temple opposite to Chengalamma layout gate, Sullurpet, the accused being driver of APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-26-Z-0235 drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the unknown male and caused the death.

That Head Constable registered the above crime and took up investigation. That he inspected the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, conducted inquest of deadbody in the presence of G. Sankar and M. Ramu. That he sent the deadbody for Post Mortem Examination.

Fair 2 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

That he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused on 24-08-2019. The identity of deceased could not be known. That Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpeta P.S. received

Motor Vehicle Inspector report and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3)This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.304(A) IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4)On the appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished and he was examined U/Sec.251

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.304(A) IPC was read over, explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. The memo filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpet P.S.

that whereabouts of LWs.3 and 6/Badanapuri Ramesh and Thummalapalli Nagaseenu not known. The evidence of LWs.8, 9 and 10/Shaik Mohammed Rafee, Motor Vehicles

Inspector, Sullurpeta, Dr. R. Anand Babu, Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

Sullurpeta and T. Masta Rao, Head Constable, Sullurpet P.S. were given up by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7) Heard arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.304(A) of IPC?

Fair 3 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

9)The investigation in this case commenced on the report of PW1 which is marked as Ex.P1.

The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that:-

On 23-08-2019 at 01.40 p.m while he was going on after Ayyappa Swamy temple, near Chegalamma layout gate, Sullurpeta, he observed one unknown person aged 50 to 55 years. That one APSRTC Bus Bearing No.AP-26-Z-0235 hit the unknown person causing death. Hence the report.

10)PW1 deposed that one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-26-Z-0235 from

Chennai to Nellore hit the unknown person. That the person died on the spot. That he informed the incident to MRO and to police. That he lodged a report under Ex.P1. That he never saw the driver of APSRTC Bus and cannot identify the accused. Though he deposed as to alleged accident, there is no identity of accused in the evidence of PW1.

Hence, from the evidence of PW1, there is no identity of accused.

11) PW2 deposed that he does not know PW1 and the deceased and does not know anything about the case. He denied the suggestion having stated to police as in

Ex.P2-his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement. Hence, the evidence of PW2 does not bring home the guilt of commission of offence.

12) PW3 deposed that no proceedings were conducted in his presence. He denied the suggestion that in his presence, inquest was conducted and that he is deposing false to help the case of accused. PW3 is the inquest mediator who does not support even the conducting of scene observation.

13) PW4 deposed on the same lines of PW3 and no proceedings were conducted by police in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were conducted in his presence and the scene observation report and inquest being conducted in his presence.

14) PW5 deposed that he does not know anything about the case and denied the suggestion having stated to police as in Ex.P7his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement.

Fair 4 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

15) Now remains the evidence of PW6 who deposed as to various aspects of investigation. He deposed that Ex.P1 is registered to Ex.P8-FIR. He deposed as to inspecting scene of offence, shifted the deadbody to mortuary, prepared rough sketch under Ex.P9, scene observation under Ex.p10 and he deposed as to conducting inquest under Ex.P11 and examining the witnesses, receiving Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report under Ex.P12, Post Mortem Certificate under Ex.P13, MACT Certificate under Ex.P14.

He deposed as to filing of charge sheet.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that he has not mentioned as to the details of the depot and the route of the bus. He admitted that he has not enquired as to the passengers of the bus. The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting the defence version for which he denied.

16) On careful examination of the available evidence on record, from the evidence of PW1, there is no identity of accused as to the commission of offence. The other witnesses PWs.2 to 5 have turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case for the reasons best known to them. There are mediators to the inquest and scene observation who have also turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case. Hence, the scene observation and inquest also not proved. The sole version of the

Investigating Officer without any corroboration from the other witnesses including PWs.1 to 5 does not support the prosecution case. The version of PW6 alone the Investigating

Officer is not substantial to bring home the guilt of the accused. The sole version of interested official witness-PW6 does not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

17)In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304(A) of

IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 10th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Fair 5 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

P.W.1 :M. Venkataramanaiah, VRA, Sullurpeta. P.W.2 : A. Rajeswari. P.W.3 : G. Sankar. P.W.4 : M. Ramu. P.W.5 : B. Ramaiah P.W.6 : K. Srinivasa Rao, the then, Sub-Inspector, Sullurpeta P.S.

Witnesses examined for defence:- None

Exhibits marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P.1:- Written report dt.23-08-2019. Ex.P.2:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.3:- Signature of PW3 in scene observation report. Ex.P4:- Signature of PW3 in Inquest report. Ex.P5:- Signature of PW4 in scene observation report. Ex.P6:- Signature of PW4 in Inquest report. Ex.P7:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P8:- FIR in Cr.No.215/2019 U.Sec.304-A PC of Sullurpet P.S. Ex.P9:-Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P10:- Scene observation report. Ex.P11:- Inquest report. Ex.P12:- Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. Ex.P13:- Postmortem report. Ex.P14:- MACT Certificate.

Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

//True copy//

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET.

Fair 6 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/ApprehensioreleasCommenceclose ofsentence/ complaintn of accusede on- ment oftrialorder bailtrial 23­08­1923­08­19­­­­­16.03.2029.07.2210.08.22 Explanation for the delay and remarks: This case was taken on file on 27.11.2019. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him on 07.01.2020. On 23-01-2020, the accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and posted for trial. On 16-03- 2020 PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1. In the meanwhile in vice of

COVID-19 Lockdown and in view of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. notification in

ROC.No.192/SO/2020 and also the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses within time and that the case is posted from time to time. On 06.06.2022 PW.2 was examined and got marked Ex.P2. On 08-06-2022, PWs.3 and 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P3 to P6. On 13-6-2022 PW5 was examined and got marked Ex.P7. On the same day, the SI of Police filed memo stated that whereabouts of LWs.3 and 6/Badanapuri Ramesh and Thummalapalli Nagaseenu not known. The evidence of LWs.8, 9 and 10/Shaik Mohammed Rafee, Motor Vehicles

Inspector, Sullurpeta, Dr. R. Anand Babu, Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

Sullurpeta and T. Masta Rao, Head Constable, Sullurpet P.S. were given up by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 28-07-2022, PW6 was examined and Exs.P8 to P14 and on 29-07-2022, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 02.08.2022 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 10.08.2022 heard the arguments and on the same day, judgment is pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.283/2019 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpeta police station

Description of the Accused : Paccha Srihari, S/o Ramanaiah, aged about 37 years, caste by Kamma, Pokkandla Village, Sydapuram Mandal, R/o Mypadu gate, 2nd street, Maruthi Nagar, Nellore, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-26-Z-0235.

Offence:U/Sec. 304-A IPC.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offences.

Fair 7 CC.No.283/2019, Dt.10.08.2022

Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 304(A) IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class

SULLURPET

To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.

Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge,

NELLORE

Calendar Case No.:CC.No.283/2019 Date o f Judgment:10.08.2022 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received

//True copy//

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET.

Fair1CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

:: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Sullurpet

Monday, this the 08th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.52/2020

State: Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Sullurpeta.… Complainant

Vs.

Yetticharla Ramanamma, W/o Polaiah, Aged about 45 years, Caste: Harijana, r/o Manga Nellore Village,

Sullurpeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 01.08.2022 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri R. Kumar, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Sullurpeta filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.74/2019 for the offence

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

2. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No.74/2019 of

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Sullurpet for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act is that:

On 14.11.2019 upon the instructions of the Prohibition and Excise

Inspector, Sullurpeta, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector along with his staff went to Manga Nellore Tank, Sullurpeta Mandal to detect Excise offences. That they found one female person holding white water packets gunny bag in her right hand. That he tried to sulk away but was detained. On enquiry, he stated that the bag contains liquor bottles.

That the Prohibition and Excise Constable T. Venkateswarlu was

Fair2CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022 sent to secure mediators but in vain. That from the bag 20 liquor bottles of ACP

Prestige Deluxe Whisky of 180 ml each were found and 2 litres capacity of plastic bottles containing ID arrack. They were labeled for sale in Andhra Pradesh Only.

Hence, they are duty paid liquor. The adhesive labels were torn. That she has no bills or permit to possess liquor bottles. On enquiry, she gave her identity as accused and she purchased the liquor bottles from unknown persons at Chittoor

District.

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector has drawn one sample bottle to send for chemical analysis. The remaining bottles were kept in the same bag and seized. The grounds of arrest were explained and the property seized under cover of Special Report.

As part of investigation, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector has sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis and received opinion. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.7A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C was furnished and when he was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.7A and 8 (e) of A.P.

Excise Act and charge was framed for the said offence, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P3. The evidence of LW2-V. Chinna Kesavalu and LW4-R.U.V.S. Prasad,

Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Sullurpeta were given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on

Fair3CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022 behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.7A and 8 (e) of A.P. Excise

Act?

9. POINT :- The investigation in this case commenced on the Special

Report which is marked as Ex.P1 through PW2.

The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that -

On 14-11-2019 at 4:30 p.m. upon the directions of Prohibition and Excise

Inspector, PW2 along with his staff went to Manga Nellore Water Tank. They observed one female person holding white water packets in her hand. On seeing

Officials, she tried to skull away but was detained. That on enquiry, she stated that the bag contains liquor bottles.

That the official was sent to secure mediators but no mediators were secured. That from the contents of the bag, there was 20 bottles of ACP Prestige

Deluxe Whisky of 180 ml each. That there was arrack in Cool drink bottles.

That the bottles contains for sale in Andhra Pradesh only. That HEAL were torn upon the bottles. That on enquiry, she gave her identity as accused and that she purchased the liquor from unknown persons. That one sample bottle was drawn to send for chemical analysis. That the remaining bottles were kept in the

Fair4CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022 same bag and seized by affixing identity slips. Hence the report.

10. The prosecution got examined PWs.1 and 2, who are the official witnesses.

11. PW1 deposed that on 14-11-2019 upon directions of Prohibition and

Excise Inspector to detect excise offences, they went to Manga Nellore Village.

That near water tank, they observed one female holding water packets. That she was detained. On enquiry, she stated that the bag contains liquor bottles. That

PW1 was sent to secure mediators but in vain. That they opened the bag and found 20 ACP Prestige Deluxe Whisky of 180 ml each. That accused purchased from unknown person to sell at high prices. That one sample was drawn and also 180 ml liquor in cool drink bottle to send for chemical analysis. The remaining bottles were kept in the same bag and seized. The accused was arrested and the property was seized under cover of Special Report.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that the exact location of water tank is not mentioned in Special report. He admitted that batch numbers, serial numbers and manufacturing date is not mentioned in Special report. In the cross examination the suggestions put supporting the version of defence that they have not tried to secure mediators for which he denied.

12. PW2 deposed on the lines of PW1 as to reaching Manga Nellore

Village, observing one female person holding bag and cool drink bottles containing liquor. That he has drawn one sample bottle and 180 ml arrack as samples for chemical analysis. The property was seized under cover of special report. That on enquiry, she gave her identity as accused. That PW2 has registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2-FIR, sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis.

PW2 is the official who detected the crime and also the investigating officer. As

Fair5CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022 per the decided case law in 2003 Vol.1 ALD Criminal Page 13 any official cannot also be the Investigating Officer.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is not mentioned in the Special Report. The suggestions were put that there is availability of school staff and other villager elders which goes to show that they have not secured mediators at the scene of offence. He admitted that Ex.P1 does not contain serial number, batch number and manufacturing date. He admitted that the same is not mentioned in Ex.P1. The other part of the cross- examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

13. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is very vague to bring home clearly the alleged offence. There is no corroboration by independent witness. In the absence of corroboration, the version of official witnesses cannot be believed.

No sample bottle was purchased before the court. The available evidence on record is also not sufficient to bring home the offence for the above reasons.

14. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required

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

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution F or Defence

P.W.1 : T. Venkateswarlu, the then, Excise Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Sullurpeta.

Fair6CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022

P.W.2 : Shaik Nazeemuddin, the then, Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement

Bureau Station, Sullurpeta.

Documents marked

For prosecution For defence

Ex.P.1:- Special report dt.14-11-2019. -- NIL --

Ex.P.2:- FIR in Cr.No.74/2019 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Sullurpet dt.14-11-2019.

Ex.P.3:- Letter of advise.

Material objects marked

NIL

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Sullurpet.

Fair7CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/Apprehen-releaseCommenceclose ofsentence/ complaintsion ofon bail- ment oftrialorder accusedtrial 14­11­1914­11­19­­­­13­07­2227­07­2208­08­22 Explanation for the delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 01.02.2020 and posted for appearance of accused. Due to covid-19, the case was posted for several adjournments. On 22-12-2021, on appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him. On 10.01.2022 a charge was framed against the accused and posted for trial. On 13-07-2022 PW.1 was examined. On 20.07.2022 PW.2 was examined and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and the evidence of LW2/V. Chinna Kesavalu, Proh. & Excise Constable, Sullurpeta was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 27-07-2022 the evidence of LW4/R.U.V.S. Prasad, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Sullurpeta was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 01-08-2022 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 01.08.2022 heard the arguments. On 08-8-2022 judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.52/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Complainant : The State Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Sullurpet.

Description of the Accused : Yetticharla Ramanamma, W/o Polaiah, Aged about 45 years, Caste: Harijana, r/o Manga Nellore Village, Sullurpeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Offence:U/Sec.7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offence.

Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

Fair8CC.No.52/2020 Dt.08.08.2022

REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class

SULLURPET

To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.

Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge,

NELLORE

Calendar Case No.:CC.No.52/2020 Date o f Judgment:08.08.2022 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Fair1CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Sullurpet

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.231/2019

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S.… Complainant

Vs.

1. Gonji Ranjith, S/o Masthanaiah, aged about 30 years, Caste by SC Mala, Rangannapattida, Sullurpeta Mandal.

2. Katta Janardhan, S/o Gangadhar, aged about 32 years, caste by Yadava, Balaji Nagar, Sullurpeta Town and Mandal, Prop: Kumar Wines,

Atakanithippa Village, Sullurpeta Mandal. ... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 01.08.2022 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri T. Tilak Kumar, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S.

filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.04/2018 for the offence

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

2. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No.04/2018 of

Sriharikota P.S. for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is that:

On 16.01.2018, upon credible information, the then, SI of Police,

Sriharikota P.S. along with his staff went to the house of A1.

That they found three gunny bags containing 130 liquor bottles, in one bag there are Mc.Dowels No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX Rum 180 ml - 50 bottles, in the second bag of MC Dowels No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX Rum 180 ml – 40 bottles and in the third bag there are Old Tavern fine Whisky 180 ml – 40 bottles.

Fair2CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

That on enquiry, A1 confessed that he purchased the liquor bottles from the Wine

Shop of A2.

That Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S. arrested A1 and seized the liquor bottles under cover of police proceedings. That A1 was produced before the court. That on 23-01-2018, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S.

arrested A2 and produced him before this court.

As part of further investigation, he sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S. received the chemical analysis report. That it is Indian made Foreign Liquor. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and issued summons to the accused

Nos.1 and 2.

4. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act and charge was framed for the said offence, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The evidence of LWs.1, 2, 4 and 6/P. Brahmaiah,

D. Subramanyam, Constables, K. Jayaramireddy, Head Constable and

L. Saraswathi, Sub-Inspector of Police of Sriharikota P.S. were given up by learned APP. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

Fair3CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act?

9. POINT :- The investigation in this case commenced on the police proceedings which is marked as Ex.p1 through PW2.

The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that:-

On 16-01-2018 at 09.00 hours, upon information to Sub-Inspector of

Police, he along with his staff conducted raid in the house of A1. That he ;found three gunny bags containing, MC. Dowels No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX Rum 180 ml – 50 bottles in one bag, MC Dowels No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX Rum 180 ml – 40 bottles in the second bag and Old Tavern Fine Whisky 180 ml – 40 bottles in the third bag.

The person gave his identity as accused and from him 40 liquor bottles were found. That they could not secure mediators. Hence, the police proceedings written and three sample bottles were drawn. The property was seized and accused arrested under cover of police proceedings.

10. PW1 deposed that on 16th day of the year 2018 but he does not remember the date at about 9.00 a.m. while he was in the police station received information as to sale of liquor near Masthanaiah’s house at Ragannapatteda.

Fair4CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

That he along with his staff went to Masthanaiah’s house and found three gunny bags. That they detained him and on enquiry, he stated that the bag contains liquor bottles. That he gave his identity as A1. That they could not secure mediators. That they found 50 bottles of Mc. Dowel Celebrations XXX Rum in one bag and 40 bottles of Mc.Dowel Celebrations XXX Rum in another bag and 40 bottles of Old Tavern Whisky in another bag. That police proceedings was written. That A1 along with property was shifted to police station.

He admitted that they have not informed to the VRO of village about the offence. He denied the suggestion that he has not went to the scene of offence.

From the evidence of PW1, he could not identify A1. Hence, from the evidence of PW1, there is no identity of accused.

11. PW2 deposed that on 16-01-2018 at 09-00 a.m. he received information as to sale of liquor in the house of G. Masthanaiah. That they went there and found three plastic bags and one person. That they detained him and on enquiry, he gave his identity as A1. That from one bag, they found 50 bottles of Mc.Dowel Celebrations XXX Rum -180 ml each, 40 bottles of Mc.Dowel

Celebrations XXX Rum – 180 ml each and 40 bottles of Old Tavern Whisky – 180 ml each. That they found 130 bottles. That PW2 has drawn one sample bottle from each brand to send for chemical analysis. That accused No.1 confessed that he purchased the bottles from Kumar Wines at Atakanitippa. That he registered Ex.P1 to Ex.P2-FIR, sent the sample bottle under letter of advice under Ex.P3, received analysis report under Ex.P4 and filed charge sheet.

12. From the evidence of PW2, he is the official who detected the crime and also the official who filed charge sheet. It is the settled law in 2003 Vol.1

ALD Criminal Page 13 that any official who detected the crime cannot also be the investigating officer. But in the present case, PW2 is both the investigating officer

Fair5CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022 as well as the official who detected the crime. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is very vague to bring home the alleged offcence. No sample bottles were produced before the court. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 does not fully put forth the commission of offence. In these circumstances, the version of prosecution cannot be believed.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution for Defence

P.W.1 : T. Ramesh Babu, the then,-- NONE –

Attached DO in Sriharikota P.S.

P.W.2 : K. Chengaiah, the then, SI of Police, Sriharikota P.S.

Documents marked

For prosecution For defence

Ex.P.1:- Police Proceedings dt.16-01-2018. -- NIL --

Ex.P.2:- FIR in Cr.No.4/2018 U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Ex.P.3:- Letter of Advice.

Ex.P4:- Chemical analysis report

Material objects marked

NIL

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Fair6CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/Apprehen-releaseCommenceclose ofsentence/ complaintsion ofon bail- ment oftrialorder accusedtrial 16.01.1816.01.18­­­­01.11.2127.07.2210.08.22 Explanation for the delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 30.09.2019 and posted for appearance of accused. On 03-02-2020 on appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of case documents were furnished to them. On 14.02.2020 charge was framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and posted for trial. In the meanwhile in vice of

COVID-19 Lockdown and in view of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. notification in

ROC.No.192/SO/2020 and also the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses within time and that the case is posted from time to time. On 01.11.2021 PW.1 was examined. On 03-11-2021 PW2 was examined and Ex.P1 marked. On 22- 07-2022, PW.2 was further examined in chief and also cross examined and got marked Exs.P2 to P4. The evidence of LWs.1, 2, 4 and 6/P. Brahmaiah,

D. Subramanyam, Constables, K. Jayaramireddy, Head Constable and

L. Saraswathi, Sub-Inspector of Police of Sriharikota P.S. were given up by learned APP. On 27-07-2022 the prosecution evidence was closed. On 28.07.2022 the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 28.07.2022 and 01.08.22 heard the arguments. On 10.08.2022 judgment is pronounced. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.231/2019 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Complainant : The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriharikota P.S.

Description of the Accused : 1. Gonji Ranjith, S/o Masthanaiah, aged about 30 years, Caste by SC Mala, Rangannapattida, Sullurpeta Mandal.

2. Katta Janardhan, S/o Gangadhar, aged about 32 years, caste by Yadava, Balaji Nagar, Sullurpeta Town and Mandal, Prop: Kumar Wines, Atakanithippa Village, Sullurpeta Mandal.

Fair7CC.No.231/2019 Dt.10.08.2022

Offence:U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offence.

Sentence:In the result the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Shaik Faizunnisa,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class

SULLURPET

To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.

Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge,

NELLORE

Calendar Case No.:CC.No.231/2019 Date o f Judgment:10.08.2022 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Fair1CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: SULLURPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Sullurpet

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

C.C.No.133/2021

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S. … Complainant

Vs.

Yeduru Suresh, S/o Viswanadha Reddy, aged about 38 years, Vannekapu by Caste, R/o Periyavattu Village, Tada Mandal,

Owner cum driver of Tipper TN-20-BP-7062. ... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 04.08.2022 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

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

Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.154/2019 for the offence

U/Sec.379 of IPC, Sec.21(1) & (4) of Mines and Minerals Development

Regulation Act, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9 (b) f (1) of APMMCR Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No.154/2019 of

Tada P.S. for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC, Sec.21(1) & (4) of Mines and

Minerals Development Regulation Act, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Sec.9 (b) f (1) of

APMMCR Act is that:

Upon information, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S. on 31-10-2019 at

Medi-Mix Factory caught hold of accused with sand loaded tipper. That LW1-

VRO, LW2-VRA along with his staff accompanied to the alleged place. That accused confessed that he was transporting the sand from Thangedupalem near

Srikalahasthi. That Sub-Inspector of police arrested the accused and seized the

Fair2CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 vehicle under cover of Mahazarnama. He took up investigation, inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused. That he handed over tipper to accused on 3-01-2020 as per orders of the court.

That further investigation is taken up by his successors and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.379 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when he was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and charge was framed for the said offence, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The evidence of LWs.2 and 6 Irakkam Thirumalesa, VRA of Tada Village and J.P. Srinivasa Reddy, SI of Police, Tada P.S. were given up by learned APP. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

Fair3CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

8. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.379 of A.P. Excise Act?

9. POINT :- The investigation in this case commenced on the mahazarnama Ex.P1 marked through PW3.

The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that:-

On 01-11-2019 at 9.00 a.m. PW3 along with his staff went to Tada in

Srikalahasthi road. That they were accompanied by VRO-Karanam Babu, VRA-I.

Thirumalesa as mediators.

That in their presence, the tipper was stopped and the driver of the tipper gave his identity as accused and confessed the offence as to transporting sand.

That accused was arrested and vehicle bearing No.TN-20-BP-7062 was seized under cover of Ex.P1 Mahazarnama.

10. PW1 deposed that on 01-11-2019, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police telephoned him to come to near Medi-Mix Factory as they have seized sand and that he has to sign. That he and LW2-I. Thirumalesa went to police station and signed.

From the evidence of PW1, it is only clear that he signed the mediators report in the police station but not at the alleged place. This creates doubt whether he really went to the alleged place of offence.

11. PW2 deposed that he along with other police officials, PW1 and LW2-I.

Thirumalesa went to Medi-Mix Factory, Srikalahasthi road. From the evidence of

PW1, it is not clear whether PW1 went to the alleged place but in the evidence of

PW2 it is mentioned as if he went to the alleged place, that they observed one tipper. PW1 who is the mediator has not deposed this in his evidence. That the

Fair4CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 driver tried to ran away but was detained. That in the presence of mediators, the person confessed as to transporting of sand from the Chittoor to Chennai. These all is not deposed by PW1 who is alleged to have accompanied to the place of offence. Hence, the evidence of PW2 is not corroborated the PW1 in all aspects.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is no his signature in the

Mahazarnama. He admitted that the exact place where the mahazanama was written is not mentioned. He admitted that the nature of sand is not mentioned in

Mahazarnama. The other part of the corss-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version, for which, he denied.

12. PW3 deposed as to reaching Medi-Mix Factory of Srikalahasthi road along with mediators. But PW1 mediator has not corroborated on this aspect.

He deposed that the they observed tipper and they detained the driver who tried to skull away. That in the presence of mediators, the driver gave his identity as accused and confessed the transporting of sand. This piece of evidence is not corroborated by PW1 the mediator. That Ex.P1 mahazarnama is written by

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. That he registered Ex.P1 to Ex.P2-FIR and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that it does not disclose that they started fromTada P.S. and that they have seized sand. He admitted that quantity of sand is not mentioned in mediators report and also the capacity of lorry. The other part of the cross-examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.

13. From the available evidence on record, there is no corroboration by mediator to the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the interested official witnesses. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 without corroboration by PW1 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The version of interested official witnesses

Fair5CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022 without the corroboration from the mediators cannot be believed. In the absence of corroboration, the version of interested official witnesses cannot be believed.

Hence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The tipper bearing No.TN-20-BP-7062 given for interim custody to the registered owner of the vehicle become absolute property after expiry of appeal time.

14. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The tipper bearing No.TN-20-BP-7092 given for interim custody to the registered owner is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Faisunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Sullurpet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution for Defence

P.W.1 : Karanam Babu, VRO, Tada. -- NONE – P.W.2 : O. Raghava Raju, the then, Constable of Tada P.S. PW.3: G. Venu, the then, SI of Police, Tada P.S.

Documents marked

For prosecution For defence

Ex.P.1:-Mahazarnama. -- NIL -- Ex.P.2:- FIR in Cr.No.154/2019 of Tada P.S. Ex.P.3:- Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

Material objects marked

NlL

Sd/- Shaik Faisunnisa,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.

Fair6CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of:NELLORE

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport/Apprehen-releaseCommenceclose ofsentence/ complaintsion ofon bail- ment oftrialorder accusedtrial 01.11.1901.11.19­­­­12.07.2228.07.2210.08.22 Explanati on for the delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 28.07.2021 and posted for appearance of accused. On 16-12-2021 on appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him. On 18.04.2022 charge was framed against the accused and posted for trial. On 12.07.2022 PW.1 was examined. On 26-07-2022, PW2 was examined. On 28-07-2022 PW3 was examined and

Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and the evidence of LWs.2, 4 and 6/Irakkam

Thriumalesa, VRA of Tada P.S., C. Subramanyam Raju, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Tada P.S. and J.P. Srinivasa Reddy, SI of Police, Tada P.S. were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 04-08-2022, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. and on the same day, heard the arguments. On 10.08.2022 judgment is

pronounced . Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.133/2021 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET

Complainant : The State The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S.

Description of the Accused : Yeduru Suresh, S/o Viswanadha Reddy, aged about 38 years, Vannekapu by Caste, R/o Periyavattu Village, Tada Mandal, Owner cum driver of Tipper TN-20-BP-7062.

Offence:U/Sec.379 of IPC.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the above said offence.

Fair7CC.No.133/2021 Dt.10.08.2022

Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The tipper bearing No.TN-20-BP-7092 given for interim custody to the registered owner is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Shaik Faisunnisa,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

SULLURPET

REMARKS From TheAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class

SULLURPET

To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.

Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil

Judge,

NELLORE

Calendar Case No.:CC.No.133/2021 Date o f Judgment:10.08.2022 Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received

//True copy//

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Sullurpet.