Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb

1 C.C.No.820 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT YELLANDU

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu.

Dated, this 02 nd day of August, 2021

C.C. No.820 of 2014

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Tekulapally.

…Complainant.

A N D:

A.1. Banoth Sakku, W/o. Bitcha, Age: 35 years, Caste: Lambadi, Occu: Agril, R/o. Golyathanda of Tekulapally Mandal.

A.2. Bhukya Kamal, S/o. Bitcha, Age: 40 years, Caste: Lambadi, Occu: Coolie, R/o. Venkatyathanda of Tekulapally Mandal.

…Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on 30.07.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complaint and of Sri.T.Maheswar Rao, Advocate for accused and on hearing of both sides and after having stood over consideration till this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Tekulapally filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.169/2014, P.S.Tekulapally, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused No.1 and 2.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet is that:

On 11.08.2014 at about 06:00 Pm on reliable information about the selling of I.D liquor, L.W.1 (Md.Shamsuddin, Asst.S.I of Police, P.S.Tekulapally) along with his staff L.W.2 and 3 (B.Krishna and Ch.Yesu, P.Cs) proceeded to the house 2 C.C.No.820 of 2014 of the A.1 and searched, her house and having a possession of a one plastic tin in a suspicious manner and L.W.1 secured the presence of L.Ws.4 and 5 (Banoth

Shankar and Banoth Bila) and interrogated the accused No.1 and she told her identify particulars as A.1 and meanwhile she fled away from her house, then the

L.W.1 verified the plastic tin and found 5 liters of I.D liquor and the same was seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws.4 and 5 and left the scene along with seized property and handed over the said property with a report of L.W.1 to L.W.8 (B.Satyanarayana, S.I of Police,

P.S.Tekulapally) and he registered the case as in Cr.No.169/2014 under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and visited the scene and prepared the CDF in the presence of L.Ws.4 and 5 and during the course of the investigation, L.W.8 (B.Satyanarayana, S.I of Police, P.S.Tekulapally) arrested the A.1 on 16.09.2014 and he arrested the A.2 on 23.09.2014 and issued Section 41(A) Cr.P.C on both the accused and forwarded the sample bottle to the analysis and after receipt of the analysis report and after completion of the investigation, he laid charge-sheet against both the accused.

3.This court had taken cognizance for the offence u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act against both the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 and 2 examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence. Hence, a charge u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, has been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter is posted for trial.

3 C.C.No.820 of 2014

6.In order to establish the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-12.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against both the accused, for which they denied the evidence as false, no defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the seizure of the 5 liters of I.D

liquor in a plastic can from the possession of the accused No.1 and A.2 beyond

all reasonable doubt. If so whether the accused No.1 and 2 are liable for

punishment u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act?

10. P O I N T:-

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, though the prosecution as cited as many as (08) witnesses, out of them P.W.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. Ex.P1 and P2 are the signatures of the P.W.1 on panchanama and CDF, Ex.P3 and P4 are the signatures of the P.W.2 on panchanama dated 16.08.2014 and CDF,

Ex.P5 is the report of the L.W.1, Ex P.6 is the FIR, Ex P.7 is the panchanama dated 11.08.2014 at about 06.00 Pm, Ex.P.8 is the CDF, Ex.P.9 is the another panchanama

dated 16.09.2014 at about 10.00 Am, Ex.P.10 is the CE analysis report, Ex.P.11 and

Ex.P.12 are the signatures of the P.W.4 and P.W.5 on Ex.P.9 panchanama. Smt APP has given up the L.W.3 (Ch.Yesu, P.C). The police filed a memo on 29.07.2021 stating that

L.W.1 is suffering from Paralysis and he could not able to move from the bed and unable to produce him before this Court, as such the said memo is accepted and closed the evidence of L.W.1 (Md.Shamsuddin, ASI of Police) on 29-07-2021.

4 C.C.No.820 of 2014

11. To prove the above case, the Prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of

PW 1 to 6. Out of them PW.1, 2 are the panch witnesses for the CDF and recovery of the property, P.W.4 and 5 are the other panch witnesses for the confessional statement of A.1, P.W.3 is the investigating officer and P.W.6 is the police constable who is the eye witness for alleged seizure of the property by the L.W.1.

12. In the present case P.W.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the CDF and seizure of the property and the P.W.4 and 5 who are the another panch witnesses for the confessional statement of the arrest of the A.1, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Hence their evidence has no way helpful to the case of the prosecution, there remains only the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 who are the official witnesses. Since P.W.3 and 6 are the official witnesses, hence they comes under the category of highly interested witness, hence their evidence shall be scrutinized with a little bit more care and caution else any amount of doubt prejudice will be caused to the accused.

13.On perusal of the evidence of PW-3/I.O, he is not the detecting officer and further his evidence goes to show that on 11.08.2014 at about 7.00 Pm, while he was incharge of the station as SHO, L.W.1 (Md.Shamsuddin, ASI of Police) handed over the case property, sample bottle and also presented Ex.P.5 report to him, then he registered the Ex.P.5 report and issued Ex.P.6 FIR, visited the scene and examined the same in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and got prepared the Ex.P.8 CDF and further deposed that on 16.09.2014 at about 10.00 Am, he arrested the A.1 at her house at

Goliyathanda under the cover of Ex.P.9 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and further stated that on 23.09.2014 A.2 voluntarily came to P.S and surrendered

before him and admitted the offence in this case, as such he arrested him and served

notice 41(A) Cr.P.C against him and after receipt of the Ex.P.10 analysis report, he laid charge-sheet.

5 C.C.No.820 of 2014

13.P.W.6/Banoth Krishna, who is the then Police Constable, P.S.Tekulapally has stated in his evidence that on 11.08.2014 himself, L.W.3, other staff members accompanied with the L.W.1 and searched the house of the accused No.1 at

Goliyathanda at about 6.00 PM and on seeing them, she try to skulk away , then they detained her and revealed identity particulars as A.1 and when they examined the can, meanwhile A.1 fled away from the scene and the seized 5 liters of I.D liquor in a can in the presence of mediators I.e, P.Ws.1 and 2 and left the scene along with the property and L.W.1 handed over the same to the P.W.3.

15.The above is the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused, with which they were charge-sheeted.

16.As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, L.W.1 handed over the sample bottle and the case property to him, but on perusal of the Ex.P.5 report of L.W.1, there is no mentioned about drawn of the sample of 180 ML bottle by the L.W.1 and there is no whisper about the evidence of P.W.6 about the drawn of the sample by the L.W.1 at the seizure of the property from the house of the A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.7 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 mediators. And even a perusal of Ex.P.7 panchanama

dated 11.08.2014 at about 6.00 Pm there is no mentioned about the drawing of the

sample from the seized property by the L.W.1 for analysis purpose. So in the absence of the same the evidence of P.W.6 can be doubted and moreover the prosecution also not produced the unexpended portion of sample bottle before this Court, it is also one of the doubtful circumstances of the case. And even the presence of P.W.6 may be true at the time of seizure of the property from the house of the A.1 under the cover of

Ex.P.7 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, he put signature on the Ex.P.7 panchanama to show that his presence that has to be recovered. Admittedly by the

P.w.6 in his cross examination he did not put his signature of Ex.P.7 panchanama dated 11.08.2014 at about 6.00 Pm, so in the absence of the same the presence of P.W.6 can be doubted at the time of the seizure of the property and moreover the P.Ws.1 and 2 6 C.C.No.820 of 2014 who are projected as a mediators also turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. And even the P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the another panch witnesses for the arrest of the A.1, they are also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution for arrest of the A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.9 panchanama. P.W.3/I.O has stated in his evidence that A.2 came to P.S voluntarily surrendered before him at P.S and admitted the offence in this case, but there is no material evidence produced by the

P.W.3, how the A.2 is connected to this crime. And even as discussed supra the evidence of P.Ws.6 also not corroborate the evidence of P.W.3/I.O and the contents of

Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 panchanama.

17. So view of my above forgoing discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act., and consequently the accused No.1 and 2 were entitled for acquittal.

18. In the result:- Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 7 (A) r/w Sec.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled after lapse of (06) months period. The un-marked case property i.e., sample bottle, if any, shall be destroyed after expire of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 02nd day of August, 2021.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

7 C.C.No.820 of 2014

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Banoth Billa, Dt.08.08.2019. - None-

P.W.2: Banoth Shankar: 28.10.2019.

P.W.3: B.Satyanarayana, S.I of Police, Dt: 06.03.2020.

P.W.4: Guguloth Bhadru, Dt: 29.01.2021.

P.W.5: Vankudoth Ramesh, Dt: 29.01.2021.

P.W.6: Banoth Krishna, P.C, Dt: 29.07.2021.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature of the P.W.1 on panchanama and CDF

Ex.P.2 is the signature of the P.W.1 on panchanama and CDF

Ex.P3 is the signature of the P.W.2 on panchanama dated 16.08.2014 and CDF

Ex.P4 is the signature of the P.W.2 on panchanama dated 16.08.2014 and CDF Ex.P5 is the report of L.W.1,

Ex P.6 is the FIR

Ex P.7 is the panchanama dated 11.08.2014 at about 06.00 Pm,

Ex.P.8 is the CDF,

Ex.P.9 is the another panchanama dated 16.09.2014 at about 10.00 Am,

Ex.P.10 is the CE analysis report,

Ex.P.11 is the signature of the P.W.4 on panchanama

Ex.P.12 is the signature of the P.W.5 on the confession panchanama.

For Defence: --NIL--

Material Objects Marked --NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

1 CC No.265 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

YELLANDU

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

Dated this the 29 th day of July, 2021

CC.No.265 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station Yellandu.

…Complainant

And

Medagani Saidulu, S/o. Jandalu, Age: 58 years, Caste: Gouda, Occu: Coolie, R/o. Bommanapally (V), Tekulapally Mandal.

…Accused.

***

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 28.07.2021 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri.N.Chennakesava Rao, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day; the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Yellandu Station filed the charge sheet in COR.No.58/2019 of Excise Station, Yellandu for the offence u/s 34

(a) & (b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet is that:

On 23.04.2019 at about 09:10 Am, on receipt of credible information about the sale of toddy, LW-3 Sri.Samee Ullakhan, , Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Yellandu along 2 CC No.265 of 2019 with staff proceeded to right side of Bommanapally Junction, Tekulapally Mandal for conducting the raids and secured the 2 panch witnesses namely L.W.1, L.W.2 (Yasarapu

Narsaiah and Verasarapu Madhusudhan), by that time the accused was possessing One

Pot and and he selling toddy, observing the raid party, then the raid party stopped the accused and found 05 liters of toddy in (01) pot and on inquiry, the accused reveals his identity and confessed that he tapped that toddy from the near by toddy tope and drawn the samples and seized the same under the cover of panchanama in the presence of L.W.1 and 2 and left the scene along with the accused and the seized property and reached the station.

On reaching Excise Station, L.W.3 registered the panchanama as the case in

COR..No.58/2019 under Section 34 (a) & (b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and served the notice under section 41( A) Cr.p.c on the accused and enlarged him. The sample was sent to the analysis. After receipt of the analysis report and after completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court taken cognizance for the offence u/s 34 (a) & (b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as per sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge u/s 34 (a) & (b) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for trial.

6.In order to establish the case of the Prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked EXs.P1 to P3.

3 CC No.265 of 2019

7.On completion of the entire evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. enabling him to explain the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the evidence as false. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents are marked.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the seizure of 05 liters of toddy from the

possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If so the accused is liable for punishment u/s 34 (a) & (b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 with which he was charged ?

9.P O I N T :

In order to establish the case of the prosecution, though the prosecution cited as many as (3) witnesses, all the witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P3. Ex.P1, P.2 are the signatures of the P.W.1, 2 on panchanama ,

Ex.P.3 is the panchanama.

10.To prove the above case, the Prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW 1 to 3. Out of them PWs.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the alleged seizure and arrest of the accused and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.

11. In the present case P.W.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the alleged seizure and arrest of accused , they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Hence their evidence has no way helpful to the case of the prosecution, there remains only the evidence of P.W.3. Since PW-3 is an official witness and he comes under the category of highly interested witness, hence his evidence should be scrutinized with a little bit more care and caution else any amount of doubt prejudice will be caused to the accused.

4 CC No.265 of 2019

12.On perusal of the evidence of PW-3, he drawn toddy one bottle for sample purpose and the same was seized under the cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.1 and 2. As per the Ex.P.3 panchanama discloses that the P.W.3 drawn 2 sample bottles of 350 ML of toddy in a pot and rest of the toddy pot was destroyed at the spot, but P.W.3 has stated in his evidence that he seized the said toddy after drawn the 1 sample bottle and the same was brought to the station, so the evidence of P.W.3 is not coupled with the contents of Ex.P.3 panchanama and moreover the prosecution not produced unexpended sample bottles of toddy before this Court after caused its analysis and P.W.1, P.W.2 who are the independent mediators also not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile and moreover Analysis

Report also not filed before this court. So the evidence of P.W.3 did not inspires the confidence of the Court.

13.In the above said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 34 (a) &

(b) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of (06) months period. The un-marked case property i.e., samples bottle, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 29th day of July, 2021.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

5 CC No.265 of 2019

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Yasarapu Narasaiah, Dt: 26.03.2021. - None-

P.W.2:Verasarapu Madhu Sudhanarao, Dt: 26.03.2021.

P.W.3: Samiullahkhan, Pro & Excise S.I, Dt: 27.07.2021.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: For Defence:

-None- Ex.P1 is the signature of the P.W.1, on panchanama ,

Ex.P.2 is the signature of P.W.2 on panchanama,

Ex.P.3 is the panchanama,

Material Objects Marked --NIL--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

YELLANDU.

TSBK030012372015

Presented on : 26-11-2015 Registered on : 30-11-2015 Decided on : 24-08-2021 Duration : 5 years, 8 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/101096/2015

PS Yellandu Through Police Station Officer PS-YELLANDU 116 , Yellandu PS Yellandu VERSUS Daida Shiva lorry cleaner, Kakatiya Nagar Yellandu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for appearing for Daida Shiva Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 294b,324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

D.C of accused not filed, but police filed a memo along with attested copies of FIR in Cr.No.135/2018 of man missing ( accused) and also filed P.M examination report, inquest report, confession statement of the M.D Nayamuddin dated 09.03.2021 and perusal of the attested copies of the confession statement of Nayamuddin and P.M examination report discloses that the accused was killed and inrespect of murder of accused in Cr.No. 135/2018 of Yellandu P.S was registered and the same is pending. As the accused is no more hence accept the memo filed by the police and the case against the accused is abated.

Date : 24-08-2021 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

TSBK030002752018

Presented on : 10-05-2018 Registered on : 11-05-2018 Decided on : 24-08-2021 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/100240/2018

SHO GUNDALA

Through Police Station Officer PS-GUNDALA 16 , Gundala VERSUS Bhanoth Suresh Age: 22 Narsapuram thanda village of Gundala mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for P.Yakaiah appearing for Bhanoth Suresh Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Police filed a memo along with the attested copy of D.C of accused stating that accused was died on 28.07.2021 and stated that the NBW of accused was not taken from the court. Perused the D.C of accused and it is corresponding to the accused and the same memo is accepted and the case is against the accused is abated.

Date : 24-08-2021 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

TSBK030003802013

Presented on : 06-10-2013 Registered on : 06-10-2013 Decided on : 12-08-2021 Duration : 7 years, 10 months, 6 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/100422/2013

SHO YELLANDU

Through Police Station Officer PS-YELLANDU 167 , SHO YELLANDU VERSUS Eesam Sammaiah, and another Subhashnagar, Yellandu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for P.Venkata Narsaiah appearing for Eesam Sammaiah, and another Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 427,448323,294-b,506r/w.34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Police filed a memo along with the attested copies of Death Certificate of A1, A2 as D.C of A1, A2 are shows that they were died on 25.08.2020, and 12.05.2021. Hence the said memo is accepted and case against the A1, A2 are abated, as they were died.

Date : 12-08-2021 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.