Smt.Shirisha Katkojwala

1 of 7 CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

MOBILE COURT : MAHABUBNAGAR.

PRESENT:- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR,

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR

DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MAY, 2022

C.C.No. 266 OF 2019

Between :

The State represented through Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Moosapet, Mahabubnagar District. …Complainant

And

A1: Thonda Mallesh, S/o. Krishnaiah, aged: 28 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ravulapally village of Bhoothpur Mandal. A2:Kavali Anjaneyulu, S/o. Chandraiah, aged: 23 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Ravulapally village of Bhoothpur Mandal. A3: Donkala Venkatrao, S/o. Chennaiah, aged 38 years, Caste: kamma, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Hanmanpally village of Dhanwada Mandal. …Accused Nos.1 to 3.

<<<>>>

This case came before me for fnal hearing on 18.04.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M.Ramesh, Counsel for accused and the matter 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 of Police, Police station, Moosapet fled a charge sheet against the accused person for the ofence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2.Briefy, the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

On 08.6.2018 at 1900 hours the complainant/A.Rajender Reddy gave a report stating that on 08.6.2018 at about 0200 hours he received information that two persons i.e, accused persons transporting cotton seeds without any valid bills at Chakrapoor village in auto bearing No.AP22Y9892, then he went to the said place and found one gunny bag containing 70 kgs of untreated and one plastic bag containing 40 kgs of treated seeds. On enquiry they have not 2 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

produced any proper documents and he requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the above said report, the LW12/ASI of police registered a case in Cr.No.41 of 2018 under section 420 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.12/ASI of police have examined and recorded the statement of the complainant/

PW.1 and other witnesses, visited the scene of ofence, secured two mediators drafted rough sketch and Crime Details Form. On 09.6.2018

LW.13/SI of police recorded the confessional statement of accused persons, who confessed to have committed this ofence in the presence of two mediators. LW13/SI of Police issued notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C directing the accused person to appear as and when summons issued from this court. After collecting all relevant material and after completion of investigation LW.14/SI of police fled charge sheet against the accused persons.

3.This court took cognizance for the ofence under Section 420 of

IPC against accused persons.

4.After appearance of the accused persons, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and a charge under section 420 of

IPC is framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P11.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating evidence available against the accused persons, for which they denied the 3 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

same. None were examined on behalf of the accused persons but

Exs.D1 to D8 are marked on their behalf.

7.After hearing arguments of both sides, the point that arose for determination in this case is: - “Whether the prosecution proved guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8. Point:-

In order to prove the charge under section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish that :-

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived:

a) to deliver any property to any person or

b) to consent that any person shall retain any property or

c) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or

d) to make, alter or destroy anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

9. To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 coupled with the evidence of PWs.12 and 13.

Coming to the evidence of PW1, he testifed that on 08.6.2018 at 2.00 AM ASI of Police informed him through phone that he along with other staf found illegal transportation of bulk cotton seeds without any valid documents in an auto bearing No.AP22Y 9892 and they seized the same at Chakrapur village shivar on National Highway.

Immediately he went to Moosapet police station at 7 AM and found 70 kgs of cotton seeds in one bag and 40 kgs of cotton seeds in another bag. The above said 70 kgs of cotton seeds were without any treatment and he also found two persons i.e., accused persons. He 4 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

further testifed that on enquiry the said persons failed to produce any valid documents to transport the above said cotton seeds. Later he gave report to the police and he also identifed the accused persons as the persons whom he enquired in the police station.

10. In the cross-examination he admitted that he cannot identify exactly who is A1 and A2 and he has not visited the scene of ofence nor present at the time of incident. He also admitted that he went to the police station at 7.00 AM on 08.6.2018 and after causing enquiries, he gave report at 2 PM and he do not know whether police received received his report on 08.6.2018 at 7.00 PM. Thus, the evidence of

PW.1 shows that on information received from ASI of Police he went to the police station and gave a report to the police and later enquired the accused persons about the case.

11. PW.2 who is said to be one of the main witnesses who alleged to be detected the crime deposed that on 08.6.2018 at 1200 midnight when he along with other staf went to patrolling duty and when they reached Chakrapur stage at about 2.00 AM they found one auto bearing No.AP22Y9892 coming from Chakrapur and they stopped the said auto. He further deposed that on search of auto, they found two bags and when they opened the said bags they found spurious seeds in the said bags. He further deposed that they took the auto and the said two bags to the police station and handed over the said auto along with two bags to LW12/ASI of Police for further investigation. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not lodged any report

before the police and he do not know whether the seized seeds are

spurious seeds or not and he handed over the auto and seized bagas to their ASI of Police at 7.00 AM. He further admitted that he has not drafted any scene of ofence panchanama.

5 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

12. PWs.3 to 5 who are also said to be present at the time of alleged ofence and also conducting patrolling duty deposed on the same lines as that of PW1. In the cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that he can identify A1 as he used to visit the villages in the jurisdiction. PW.4 admitted that he do not know whether the seized bags contains spurious seeds or not and he do not know weight of the said seized bags, but he added that accused persons informed about the weight of the said bags. Whereas, PW.5 admitted on the information given by LW12/ASI of Police, he came to know about weights of two bags.

13. After scanning the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 who are important and crucial witnesses, it shows that PW1 deposed about receiving of information about the illegal transportation of cotton seeds from PW2 and later he went to the police station and gave a report to the police after making enquiries with the accused persons. Whereas PWs3 to 5 deposed about their conducting patrolling duty at the time of alleged ofence and also seizing of auto along with seeds and handing over the same to PW2. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 does not show that accused persons dishonestly induced any person to deliver the property to them. Hence, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 cannot be given much importance.

14. PWs.6 and 7 who are said to be panch witnesses for scene of ofence failed to support the case of the prosecution. PWs.8 and 9 who are said to be panch witnesses for confessional cum recovery pachanama of A2 and A3 also not supported the prosecution case and

PWs.10 and 11 who are said to be panch witnesses for confessional statement of A3 and also recovery panchanama did not support the 6 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PWs.6 to 11 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

15. Now the left over evidence is PWs.12 and 13, who were the then investigating ofcers, deposed about the investigations done by him.

As discussed supra, when the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 along with PWs.6 to 11 who are crucial and important witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution case, the evidence of PWs.12 and 13 is also not much helpful to the prosecution case. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

16.In view of aforesaid discussion, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for the ofence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused persons are entitled to acquittal.

17. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP-22Y-9892 which was given towards interim custody to accused No.2 as per the orders of this court vide

Crl.M.P.No. 1399 of 2018, dt:06-07-2018 shall be made absolute after

lapse of appeal period.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 02nd day of May, 2022.

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.

7 of 7CC.No.266 of 2019

Dt:02-05-2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 A.Rajender Reddy, -NIL- PW2 K.Gopal Naik PW3 K.Govardhan Reddy, PW4 A.Chandu, PW5 Srinivasulu, PW6 V.Devender Rao, PW7 S.Shiva, PW8 B.Praveen Kumar, PW9 Y.Raju, PW10 G.Nagi Reddy, PW11 P.Laxman Rao, PW12R.Sudharshan Reddy, ASI of police, PW13Mohd. Nasar,

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the Report, Ex.P2: is the signature of PW.6 on Crime Details Form, Ex.P3: is the signature of PW.7 on Crime Details Form, Ex.P4: is the signature of PW.8 on Confessional statement of A1 and A2, Ex.P5: is the signature of PW.9 on Confessional statement of A1 and A2, Ex.P6: is the signature of PW.10 on Confessional statement of seizure panchanama of A3, Ex.P7: is the signature of PW11 on Confessional statement-cum-seizure panchanama of A3, Ex.P8: is the First Information Report, Ex.P9: is the Crime Details Form along with rough, Ex.P10: is the Confessional Statement of A1 and A2, Ex.P11: is the Confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of A3.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 to D8 are marked relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statements.

Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.

CC No. 322 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

pROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, this the 21" day of April, 2023

Present: Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proh & Excise cum ll| A/C|,

Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No., 322 of 2016

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Wanapathy.

.Complainant

AND

Nandimalla Ashok S/o Thirumalaiah, age 40 yrs, Occ: agril, R/o Ganesh Nagar,

Wanaparthy.

...Accused

*7**k

This case is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the

presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Sri B.Sayanna and

KNarsimulu Learned Counsels for accused and upon perusing the material

on record, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Wanaparthy P.S. laid charge sheet against

accused for the offence punishable U/Secs. 171-H, 188 of IPC and sec 4 of

A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of open places and Prohibition of Obscene

and objectionable advertisements.

2 Facts in short, on 21.04.2014 at about 09:00 hours, Lw-1 reported to

LW-5 stating that on 19.04.2014 it is noticed by the election central observer

that poster of TDP Party and flag fixed on the public property near Govt

Polytechnic college and same has been vide0 graphed.

3. Basing on the above report, LW-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 10/2014,

U/Secse\N71-H, 188 of IPC and sec 4 of A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of

opeptes and Prohibition of Obscene and objectionable advertisements.

\Mahabubi

P

t o

Page No. 2 of 4

iOst Pw-1 the accu

After completion of investigation, LW-5 filed charge sheet against

accused ined

4 This court has taken cognizance for the offense punishable UISe

U/Secs. 171-H, 188 of IPC and sec 4 of A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement o

A s s

open places and Prohibition of Obscene and objectionable advertisements

Ex. Pl.H

against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents woe

furnished to him as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

the

Accused is examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/

5

Secs. 171-H, 188 of IPC and sec 4 of A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of open

places and Prohibition of Obscene and objectionable advertisements thereby,

charges were framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular

language, for which he pleaded not quilty and claimed to be tried.

6 To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got

marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.

313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain the incriminating material appeared

against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness

of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

8 Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 and A-2

for the offense punishable

U/Secs. 171-H, 188 of IPC and sec 4 of

AP Prevention of Disfigurement of open places and Prohibition of

Obscene and objectionable advertisements beyond reasonable

doubt?

:It is the case of the prosecution tat accused is the president of TDP

First

Judl,

party atd the election central observer noticed that the TDP party posters

nd fla�s are fixed to the public property near Govt. Polytechnic college,

\Mahabubnagar

Mahabubrvagar/

12. accused. orominent to the direct oamination, time Miinal Wanaparthy election the ExP1. accused. aainst the iesient Suggestions Torwarding 13. panchanama. Case.

tscl0Sihg Dmple eye 14. aartny in of

mined Pw-1 to

transformer. fixed TDP and e witnesses Pw-4 Pw-2 witness He Perusing ceen ked

fixing place ommissioner. party deposed on

to

by liable FIR is violating from and see he put election violation the They and the are the the admitted flags

of to to that It

unless by the Pw-3 that party investigation may his Pw-4 flags show the the not person entire have who evidence evidence

learned be mentioned

president it court. are Ex.P2 and belong that turned that is evidence have who true 19.04.2014

proved to

TDP the Beside there is got have counsel officer. fixed that the of

hostile is

to the through Panch Pw-1, marked party specifically not code commission by and one the the was transformer fixed CD this, the disclosing election material for He flags and flags flags of who party marked 2 the the cogent witnesses admitted he days Ex. accused. conduct did

flags. is

party are denied in belong in would observer the P1 on not order delay orders. evidence who the through got near to Further volunteers. record, support without complainant that for report. fixed all to to has P6.to not in'lodging the TDP Polytechnic The there attribute reported scene him. that make there fixed Ex.P1 CC by the permission formal Pw-1 prosecution prove party, No. Ex.P2 the the was In prosecution the is that of report and 322 culpability is the him same accused. the silent direct no delay but adverse flags not college,

is offence lodged of

party cross about also from 2016 are it the and case as has

in is to

CC No. 322 of 2016

Page No. 4 of 4

to the place in specific where the flags are fixed. Hence, the prosecution has

failed to produce cogent evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not quilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs. 188, 171-H of IPC and U/Sec 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of

Disfigurement of Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable

and advetisements Act-1997 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties be discharged after

lapse of appeal period. There is no property hence no order that regard.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Coyrt on this the 21 day of

April 2023.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proh &Excise cum Il AJCJ

Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

Pw-l: M.Venkateshwarlu

Pw-2: Eeshwar Goud

Pw-3: Syed Mujeeb

Pw-4: V.Seetharam Reddy, Sl of police

For Defence: Nil

For Prosecution: Documents Marked

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Crime Detail Form

Ex.P3: Signature of Pw-3 on Ex.P6

Ex.P4: Signature of Pw-3 on Ex.P6

Ex.P5: FIR

Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama

Defencet

Ni

Material Objects Marked

--Nil-

rlstrate

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

,riahabubnagar/

Proh & Excise cum ll AJC)

Mahabubnagar.

Page No. 1 of 4 CC No. 565 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 565 of 2022

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar.

…Complainant AND

Mudavath Gemini W/o Chandar, age 47 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Bandameedi thanda, Mahabubnagar.

..Accused

*****

This case is coming on 03.08.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Learned Counsel Smt. S.Uma Maheshwari for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Proh and Excise station, Mahabubnagar filed this case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.04.2017 about 06.15

PM on reliable information about illegal sale of ID liquor, Lw-3 along with staff proceeded to chikkuduvagu thanda, Mahbubnagar and secured the presence of Lw-1 and Lw-2 and requested them for watch their proceedings. All of the reached at suspected house and found one person with a plastic bottle. On enquiry, she revealed her name as M. Jemini W/o Chandar. Then they issued

Page No. 2 of 4 CC No. 565 of 2022 search memo to her. On search, they found 2 ltrs ID liquor in two plastic bottles possessed by accused illegally. Then, they seized the same under cover of panchanama and also drawn two samples of ID liquor each containing 350 ml. Thereafter, they returned to police station along with accused, samples and seized property and handed over to Lw-4, who issued

PCOR No.88/2017, U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 against accused.

and served with Sec. 41-A cr.p.c notice. The samples were deposited in the court with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner vide in his Report. No. 6021/2017/03 opined that “the

sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and

injurious to health" The remaining seized property was deposited in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Proh and Excise, Mahabubnagar for confiscation.

Basing on the above material and evidence, Lw-5 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Proh Act 1995 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. charge is framed read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Pw-1 to Pw-4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared against her in the prosecution evidence, for which she denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on her side.

Page No. 3 of 4 CC No. 565 of 2022

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Proh Act 1995?

9.Point: On perusal of record, it can be seen that Pw-1 and Pw-2 are the panch witnesses for seizure panchanama and they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thus the seizure of ID liquor from accused is not proved. Pw-3 and Pw-4 are investigation officers, who deposed about the facts of the case in the lines of charge sheet. Except the investigation officer, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the contraband. As such in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate the version of Pw-3 and Pw-4, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole evidence of Pw-3 and Pw-4, who is the excise official interested in the outcome of prosecution. Moreover, no document is filed to show that the alleged house belongs to accused. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 and accordingly she is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 25th day of April 2023.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Page No. 4 of 4 CC No. 565 of 2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW-1: K. Anjaneyulu

Pw-2: K.Gopal

Pw-3: B.Ram Reddy, P&ESI

Pw-4: B.Srinivas, P&ESI

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-2 on Ex.P2

Ex.P2: Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3: PCOR

Ex.P4: Letter of advice

Ex.P5: FSL report

For Defence --Nil--

Material Objects Marked --Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No.998 of 2022

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar.

…Complainant AND

Goda Premeelamma W/o Chennaiah, age 42 yrs, Occ: toddy seller, R/o Shakapur village of Addakal mandal.

..Accused

*****

This case is coming on 24.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Smt. Uma Maheshwarai Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Proh and Excise station, Mahabubnagar filed this case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 34(a) of

T.S Excise Act 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.10.2018 at about 07.15 am, on reliable information about illegal sale of toddy in Shakapur village, Lw-3 along with staff proceeded to said place and secured the presence of Lw-1 and Lw-2 and requested to watch their proceedings. All of them reached the said place and while conducting raids of toddy shops, they found one lady conducting the sales of toddy in front of her house. On enquiry, she revealed her name as G. Parvathamma W/o Chennaiah. On checking, 12 bottle of toddy each bottle containing 5 lts of toddy of toddy possessed by accused illegally. Then they seized toddy and tested with with prescribed chemicals and found there is no pink layer which indicates that the toddy is free from chloral hydrate. Then, the officials drawn two samples of toddy each 350 ml toddy and sealed them under cover of panchanama.

Thereafter, the remaining toddy was destroyed on the spot. Thereafter, they returned to police station along with samples, seized contraband, samples and issued PCOR No. 201/2018 for offence U/Sec 34 (a) of TS Excise Act 1968 and issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice. The samples were deposited in the court with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner vide in his Report. No. 7819/2018/3, opined that “the

Sl.No. 13234 is fermented toddy adulterated with chloral hydrate.

Sl.No. 13235 is chloral hydrate.” Basing on the above material and evidence, Lw-3 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec 34

(a) of TS Excise Act 1995.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec 34 (a) of TS Excise Act 1968 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. charge is framed read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Pw-1 and Pw-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared against her in the prosecution evidence, for which she denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on her side.

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec 34 (a) of TS

Excise Act 1968?

9.Point: On perusal of record, it can be seen that Lw-1 and Pw-1 are the panch witnesses for seizure panchanama and they were not examined as the prosecution has filed report submitting that their whereabouts is not known.

Thus the seizure of toddy from accused is not proved. Pw-2 is the investigation officer, who deposed about the facts of the case in the lines of charge sheet. Except the investigation officer, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the contraband. As such in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate the version of Pw-2, it is highly unsafe to rely upon their evidence as he is the excise official would be interested in the outcome of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec 34 (a) of TS Excise Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 34 (a) of

TS Excise Act 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The MO.1 is the shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 25th day of April 2023.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW-1: G.Bhaskar

Pw-2: P.Umamaheshwar, P&ESI

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on Ex.P2

Ex.P2: Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3: PCOR

Ex.P4: Letter of advice

Ex.P5: FSL report

For Defence --Nil--

Material Objects Marked

MO.1 is the sample bottle

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE COURT CUM II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cumII AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 1002 of 2022

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Mohammadabad.

…Complainant AND

Katravath Ramesh S/o Ganji Naik, age 25 yrs, Occ: agril, R/o Bapankunta thanda, H/o Venkatreddypally village of Gandeed mandal, Mahabubnagar.

...Accused

***** This case is coming on 11.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Sri J.Anand Goud Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Mahmmadabad filed this case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of AP Excise and Proh Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.06.2016 at about 16:00 hours, on reliable information about illegal sale of liquor, Lw-7 along with Lw-1 and Lw-2 proceeded to

Mukarlabad village. On seeing the officials, accused fled away leaving white bag. On search, they found two plastic bottles containing total 2.25 ltrs of arrack. Then, they secured the presence of Lw-3 and Lw-4 and seized the arrack under cover of panchanama. Then, they returned to station along with seized contraband.

3.Basing on the above panchanama, Lw-7 registered case in Cr.No. 60/2016 for offence U/

Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, Lw-8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This court took cognizance of the offence U/ Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C.,charge is framed for the offence punishable

U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Pw-1 to Pw-6 examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

8.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act?

10. On perusal of record, it can be seen that the Pw-1 and PW-2 are the police constables, who accompanied PW-6 to scene of offence. Both of them deposed in similar lines that they found ID liquor in bottles, on seeing them accused fled away. Except Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-6, who is the investigation officer there is no other evidence to show that they seized the liquor from the possession of accused as the panch witness turned hostile did not support the prosecution case, thus the seizure panchanama is not proved. Pw-4 is one of the panch witness for confessio panchanama and he deposed that police called him and Lw-6 to the house of accused and the accused confessed before them that he was selling liquor due to economic problems. However, on perusal of facts and deposition of Pw-1 and Pw-2, the accused fled away from scene of offence on seeing the officials. Hence, the evidence of Pw-4 is not reliable as the same is contradicting with the facts and deposition of Pw-1 adn Pw-2. Therefore, Ex.P3 is not proved. Further, no independent witnesses were examined. Therefore, in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate the version Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-6, it is highly unsafe to rely upon their evidence as they would be interested in the prosecution case. In light of above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r.w 8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Act and accoridingly he is acquitted U/sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destoryed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused is shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 28 th day of April 2023.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum IIAJCJ Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW-1: Keshavulu Pw-2: K.Gangesh Kumar Pw-3: B.Raghavender Pw-4: K.Chander Pw-5: Balya Pw-6: S.Pandu For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of Pw3 on rough sketch Ex.P2: Signature of Pw-3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Confession panchanama of accused Ex.P4: Signature of Pw-5 on Ex.P3 Ex.P5: Seizure panchanama Ex.P6: Rough Sketch Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: FSL report For Defence --Nil--

Material Objects Marked

--Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum II AJCJ, Mahabubnagar.