Ms Sunkara Srirekha

1

APEG0B0015202024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Ms.SUNKARA SRIREKHA

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of July, 2025

C.C.NO.929/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector, of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station. …Complainant. And: Mamidisetti Jayarama Krishna, S/o Trimurthulu, Age 38 years, Sriram Nagar, Machavaram Village, Ambajipeta Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 21.07.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Venkanna,Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.246/2023 of Ambajipeta Police Station, registered against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 on the basis of Ex.P.1 occurrence report.

2.PW.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Amended Act of 2020 with the following averments:

2

3.On 24.12.2023 about 11.00 A.M., on credible information about selling of unauthorised liquor, PW.2 along with his staff members PW.1 and PC-3719 Sri

M.Sridhar (LW.2) of Ambajipeta Police Station, proceeded to the scene of offence at Durga Cool Drink Shop, Sriram Nagar, Machavaram Village of Ambajipeta

Mandal whereat they noticed the accused was possession of a jute bag. On seeing the police party the accused tried to escape therefrom. On suspicion,

PW.2 detained him with the help of the staff and on questioning the accused he revealed his name and identity particulars and confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles which was purchased from a wine shop to sell the same at higher price. Then PW.2 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain, and he verified the said bag and found 13 liquor bottles, namely 1)

Old Admiral find Brandy - 3 bottles, 2) AC Black Classic Whisky - 6 bottles, 3)

Andhra Gold fine whisky - 3 bottles and 4) Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whisky - 1 bottle, each 180 ml in size. As the possession, transportation and sale of liquor without licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. PW.2 informed the same to the accused, arrested him and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report drafted thereat by him, as none came forward to act as mediators. Basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report,

PW.2 registered a case against the accused under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR. Later he served notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C on the accused and released him on station bail. Then PW.2 drew one bottle each from each brand of the seized property as samples for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottles as well as the remaining seized property, and he sent the samples to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice, and he received Ex.P.4 analysis report opining that the said liquor was

Indian made liquor. After following due procedure and completion of further investigation, PW.2 laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused.

Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

3

4.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offence under

Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020, against the accused.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 was framed and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu by my learned predecessor for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.Os.1 to 4, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of jute bag containing liquor Bottles ?

2) Whether the said jute bag is seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the 4 offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence ?

POINT NOS.1 TO 3 :

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in possession of 13 liquor bottles for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit in that regard and the same is seized from the possession of the accused as per the procedure laid down under law.

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PW.1 in the first instance as deposed by him that on 24.12.2023 about 11.00 A.M., on credible information about selling of unauthorised liquor, he along with his staff members PW.1 and PC-3719 Sri M.Sridhar (LW.2) of

Ambajipeta Police Station, proceeded to the scene of offence at Durga Cool Drink

Shop, Sriram Nagar, Machavaram Village of Ambajipeta Mandal whereat they noticed the accused was possession of a jute bag. On seeing the police party the accused tried to perturb therefrom. On suspicion, he detained him with the help of the staff and on questioning the accused he revealed his name and identity particulars and confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles which was purchased from a wine shop to sell the same at higher price. Then he tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain, and he verified the said bag and found 13 liquor bottles, namely 1) Old Admiral find Brandy - 3 bottles, 2) AC Black Classic Whisky - 6 bottles, 3) Andhra Gold fine whisky - 3 bottles and 4) Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whisky - 1 bottle, each 180 ml in size. As the possession, transportation and sale of liquor without licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. He informed the same to the accused, arrested him and seized the contraband under the cover of 5

Ex.P.1 occurrence report drafted thereat by him, as none came forward to act as mediators. Basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report, he registered a case against the accused under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR. Later he served notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C on the accused and released him on station bail. Then he drew one bottle each from each brand of the seized property as samples for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottle as well as the remaining seized property, and he sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice, and he received Ex.P.4 analysis report opining that the said liquor was Indian made liquor. After completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused.

12.During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he stated that the occurrence report was typed document but not handwritten and while drafting the occurrence report his staff and accused were also present but there were no signatures of his staff or accused on the occurrence report; and that Machavaram has a Panchayat Secretary and he did not examine any buyers from the accused; and that he did not prepare rough sketch of the scene of offence that he did not send the samples for examination on the same day and he did not file original of mediator report prepared in the Court. However, he denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not mention that the seized property is duty paid in the charge sheet; and that he never proceeded to the scene of offence and that the entire case record was prepared by him sitting at the police station for statistical purpose and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.

13.Turning to the evidence of PW.1, is well nigh akin to that of PW.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not examine any independent witness at the scene of offence; and that he was present at the time of preparing occurrence report, that he did not 6 sign on it and they did not obtain the signature of the accused on the occurrence report. However, he denied the suggestion that he did never proceeded to the scene of offence at the instance of PW.2 and the offence never took place.

14.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

16.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.2 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in the possession of the accused but nobody came forward to act as mediators. It is manifest that no independent witnesses were examined in this case. From the evidence of PW.2, it is not axiomatic as to who were requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.2 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, PW.2 is police official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that he did not make any sincere efforts to 7 secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was obvious from the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of

Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the colour and special identification marks of the jute bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

17.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the

A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

18.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise

Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers.

Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the 8 offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1,

Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise

Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing

I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

19.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/ witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

20.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the samples were reached to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 06.01.2024 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 24.12.2023 when the alleged samples was drawn. Thus, there was a delay of 13 days in reaching the samples to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P.

[2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

21.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the police officials-PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of a jute bag containing liquor bottles and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official 9 does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT NO.4:

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 to 4 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of July, 2025.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Koppisetti Uma Maheswara Rao.None 10

PW.2: A.Chaitanya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Nil Ex.P.2: FIR . Ex.P.3: Letter of advice. Ex.P.4: Chemical Analysis report.

Material Objects Marked

M.Os.1 to 4 sample bottles.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

11

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by MS.Sunkara Srirekha, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.929/2024

Date of Offence: 24.12.2023

Date of Report : 24.12.2023

Date of arrest of Accused : 24.12.2023

Date of release on bail: 24.12.2023

Date of commencement of Trial : 03.01.2025

Date of close of Trial: 14.07.2025

Date of sentence or order23.07.2025

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector, of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station.

Name of the accused: MamidisettiJayaramaKrishna,S/o Trimurthulu, Age 38 years, Sriram Nagar, Machavaram Village, Ambajipeta Mandal.

Offence: under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Amended Act of 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 to 4 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

1

APEG0B0013142023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Ms.SUNKARA SRIREKHA

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of July, 2025

C.C.NO.1230/2023

Between: State represented by the Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Amalapuram. …Complainant. And: Appari Ramesh @ Yesu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 27 years, R/o Kethavaripalem, Nallamilli Village, Amalapuram Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 08.07.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri U.P.Lakshmana Rao,Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.80/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Amalapuram, registered against the accused for the offence under

Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 on the basis of Ex.P.1 special report.

2.PW.2, the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Amalapuram, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 with the following averments:

2

3.On 10.03.2021 at about 07.00 A.M., PW.1 along with his staff members-

Inspector In-charge Sri B.Venkateswara Rao and HC Sri P.Suresh Babu (LWs.2 and 3) of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Amalapuram, while conducting patrolling and when they reached at Ramalayam, Nallamilli Gram Panchayat of

Amalapuram Mandal, whereat they noticed the accused was possession of a mica bag. On seeing the police party the accused tried to perturb therefrom. On suspicion, PW.1 detained him with the help of the staff and on questioning the accused he revealed his name and identity particulars and confessed that the bag contained I.D.liquor which was purchased from an unknown person to sell the same at higher price. Then PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain, and he verified the said mica bag and found with one 2 liter white plastic bottle containing 2 liters of I.D.liquor. As the possession, transportation and sale of I.D.liquor without licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of the A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act 18 of 2020. PW.1 informed the same to the accused, arrested him and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted thereat by him, as none came forward to act as mediators. Basing on Ex.P.1 special report, PW.1 registered a case against the accused under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended

Act 18 of 2020 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR and produced the accused before the Court for remand. Then PW.1 drew the I.D.liquor bottle from the seized property as sample for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottle as well as the remaining seized property, and he sent the sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice, and he received Ex.P.4 analysis report opining that the said liquor was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Later he handed over the case to

PW.2/Enforcement Inspector. After completion of further investigation, PW.2 laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

3

4.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offence under

Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020, against the accused.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 was framed and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu by my learned predecessor for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of mica bag containing ID liquor ?

2) Whether the said mica bag is seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the 4 offence punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence ?

POINT NOS.1 TO 3 :

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the

A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in possession of 2 liters of I.D.liquor for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit in that regard and the same is seized from the possession of the accused as per the procedure laid down under law.

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PW.1 in the first instance as deposed by him that on 10.03.2021 at about 7.00 A.M., himself and LWs.2 and 3 proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Nallamilli Panchayat at Kethavaripalem, near Ramalayam temple.

While he was conduct raid under the supervision of LW.2/Incharge Inspector, thereat they noticed one person having mica bag under suspious circumstances.

On seeing them, he tried to skulk away, they caught hold him and on his enquiry he disclosed his particulars, and he confessed before them that he purchased the

ID arrack from an unknown person to sell the same at higher price without having any valid licence or permit. Then he deputed LW.3 to secure mediators but no one was available to act as mediator. Then, he verified and found 2 Liters of

Plastic bottle containing 2 Liters of ID Arrack. Then he lifted total 2 Liters as sample for analysis purpose and he drafted Ex.P.1 special report. Then he seized the entire contraband and arrested the accused and brought to the police station along with the seized the case property and registered the case and issued

Ex.P.2 FIR. Later, he sent the M.O.1 sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis under Ex.P.3 letter of advice. He received the Ex.P.4 analysis report opining that the said I.D.arrack was unfit for human consumption. PW.2 took up 5 further investigation in this case and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12.Turning to the evidence of PW.2, he deposed that he took-up further investigation in this case and verified the case record. After completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. However, in his cross- examination he denied that he did not verify the case record and he is deposing false.

13.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

15.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in the possession of the accused but nobody came forward to act as mediators. It is manifest that no independent witnesses were examined in this case. From the evidence of PW.1, it is not axiomatic as to who were requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated 6 against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, PW.1 is police official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that he did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was obvious from the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of

Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the colour and special identification marks of the mica bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

16.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the

A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

7 "Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise

Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers.

Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1,

Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise

Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing

I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/ witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 24.05.2021 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 10.03.2021 when the alleged sample was drawn. Thus, there was a delay of 75 days in reaching the sample to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P.

[2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the police officials-PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the 8 case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of a mica bag containing I.D.Arrack and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT NO.4:

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-

A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of July, 2025.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

9

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Md.Jainulabddin, Sub-Inspector.None PW.2: Vegesana Siva Rama Raju, Enforcement Inspector.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Special report. Nil Ex.P.2: FIR . Ex.P.3: Letter of advice. Ex.P.4: Chemical Analysis report.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 sample bottle.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by MS.Sunkara Srirekha, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.1230/2023

Date of Offence: 10.03.2021

Date of Report : 10.03.2021

Date of arrest of Accused : 10.03.2021

Date of release on bail: 15.03.2021

Date of commencement of Trial : 10.07.2023

Date of close of Trial: 12.05.2025

Date of sentence or order22.07.2025

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Amalapuram.

Name of the accused: Appari Ramesh @ Yesu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 27 years, R/o Kethavaripalem, Nallamilli Village, Amalapuram Mandal.

Offence: under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 . Plea of Accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition Excise Amended Act 18 of 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

1

APEG0B0043682022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Ms.SUNKARA SRIREKHA

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of July, 2025

C.C.NO.3707/2022

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station. …Complainant. And: Nandikolla Veerababu, S/o Subbarao, Age 36 years, Native of Ramalayam Street, Duggudurru Village, Kajuluru Mandal, R/o Opp:RTO Office, Black Bridge, Amalapuram. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 08.07.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Kudupudi Ashok,Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.362/2022 of Amalapuram Town Police

Station, registered against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Amended Act, 2020 on the basis of Ex.P.1 occurrence report.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 34(a) A.P. Excise Amended Act, 2020 with the following averments:

2

3.On 29.10.2022 at about 07.00 P.M., LW.6 along with his staff, PW.1, PC- 612 Sri V.Durga Prasad and PC-2964 Sri G.Raj Kumar (LWs.2 and 3) of

Amalapuram Town Police Station, while conducting patrolling at Red Bridge,

Amalapuram whereat they noticed the accused in possession of a bag and on seeing them he perturbed and tried to run away therefrom. On suspicion, LW.6 detained him with the help of the staff and on questioning the accused, he revealed his name and identity particulars and confessed that he purchased the said liquor bottles from a wine shop in order to sell the same for higher price to eke out his livelihood. Then LW.6 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain, and he verified the said mica bag and found 25 liquor bottles, namely, 1) HD Heart Desire- 15 bottles and 2) BB Brilliant Brand – 10 bottles, each 180 ml. in size. As the possession, transportation and sale of liquor bottles without licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of the APE Act, 1968, LW.6 informed the same to the accused, arrested him and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report drafted thereat by him, as none came forwarded to act as mediators. Then LW.6 separated one bottle each from the seized property as samples for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottles as well as the remaining seized property, and he brought the accused, the case record and the case property and brought to the

Police Station. Basing on the occurrence report LW.6 registered case against the accused under Section 34(a) of the APE Act, 1968 and issued FIR. Later, LW.6 produced the accused before the Court for remand, and he sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and received the analysis report indicating that the said bottles were Indian Made Liquor. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

4.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offence under

Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Amended Act, 2020, against the accused.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated 3 under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Amended Act, 2020 was framed and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu by my learned predecessor for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 and M.Os.1 and 2, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of hand bag containing liquor Bottles ?

2) Whether the said bag is seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Amended Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence ?

4

POINT NOS.1 TO 3 :

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise

Amended Act, 2020 the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in possession of 25 liquor bottles for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit in that regard and the same is seized from the possession of the accused as per the procedure laid down under law.

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PW.1 in the first instance as deposed by him that on 29.10.2022 at about 07.00 P.M., himself and LWs.2, 3 and 6 while conducting patrolling at

Red Bridge, Amalapuram and when they reached near Med Plus Medical Shop, noticed the accused having a hand bag on seeing them, he tried to skulk away from the spot on the instructions of LW.6, they caught hold the accused, LW.6 enquired about the accused, he disclosed his particulars and confessed that he possessed liquor bottles in the said bag and the same was purchased from the

Government Liquor shops in order to sell the same at higher price. Then, they tried to secure the mediators, but no one came forward to act as mediators, LW.6 verified the said bag and found 25 liquor bottles in two brands. 1) HD Heart

Desire 180 -15 bottles and 2) BB Brilliant Brand-10 bottles, each 18 ml in size.

LW.6 lifted two bottles from each brand for analysis purpose and affixed the identity slips, after obtaining the signatures of himself, L.Ws.2, 3, 6 and the accused. LW.3 drafted the Ex.P.1 occurrence report. Myself, LWs.2 and 3, and accused, and LW.6 signed thereon. Later, LW.6 arrested the accused and brought to the police station along with seized property.

12.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that on that day, they started to conduct raid at 06.30 A.M., when they reached to the alleged scene of offence at about half an hour time, he did not know whether LW.6 entered in General Diary details to conduct the raid. The scene of offence was a busy locality, and they did not mention the names, who objected to act as 5 mediators. However, he denied the suggestion that they did not visit the scene of offence and seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused and foisted a false case against the accused and that he is deposing false.

13.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused are entitled to acquittal.

15.It may be seen from the evidence on record that LW.6 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in the possession of the accused but nobody came forward to act as mediators. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is manifest that no independent witnesses were examined in this case. From the evidence of PW.1, it is not axiomatic as to who were requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really LW.6 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, PW.1 is police 6 official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that LW.6/S.I. of Police did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was obvious from the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the

Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of PW.1 the colour and special identification marks of the bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

16.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the

A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise

Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers.

7

Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1,

Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise

Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing

I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/ witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the samples were reached to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 11.11.2022 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 29.10.2022 when the alleged samples were drawn. Thus, there was a delay of 13 days in reaching the samples to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P.

[2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the police official-PW.1, who is very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of a bag containing liquor bottles and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of 8 offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT NO.4:

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendend Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear

before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 and 2 sample bottles

shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of July, 2025.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

9

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Mamidipalli Subbaraju, HC-2513.None

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Nil

Material Objects Marked

M.Os.1 and 2 are sample bottles.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by MS.Sunkara Srirekha, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.3707/2022

Date of Offence: 29.10.2022

Date of Report : 29.10.2022

Date of arrest of Accused : 29.10.2022

Date of release on bail: 04.11.2022

Date of commencement of Trial : 25.03.2024

Date of close of Trial: 02.07.2025

Date of sentence or order22.07.2025

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station.

Name of the accused: Nandikolla Veerababu, S/o Subbarao, Age 36 years, Native of Ramalayam Street, Duggudurru Village, Kajuluru Mandal, R/o Opp:RTO Office, Black Bridge, Amalapuram.

Offence: under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Amended Act, 2020 . Plea of Accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendend Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 and 2 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

1

APEG0B0012052020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Ms.SUNKARA SRIREKHA

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

C.C.NO.601/2020

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station. …Complainant. And: Sanaboyina Srinu @ Yedukondalu, S/o Subbarao, Age 40 years, Nedunuru Village, Ainavilli Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 04.05.2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Advocate for the Accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.110/2020 of Ambajipeta Police Station, registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 188 of IPC and 8B of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 on the basis of occurrence report.

2.LW.4/Shaik Jani Basha, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police

Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 188 of IPC and 8B of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following averments:

3.On 20.05.2020 at about 09.00 P.M., on credible information about transportation and selling illegal arrack, LW.3/K.V.Nagarjuna, along with his staff members of Ambajipeta Police Station, conducted raid at Near Mukkamala Center,

Mukkamala Village, Ambajipeta Mandal, whereat they noticed the accused was in possession of ID liquor. On seeing the police, the accused tried to escape 2 therefrom but LW.3 with his staff detained him. On questioning the accused, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in possession of ID liquor which was purchased from an unknown person in order to the sell the same at higher price. On verification, LW.3 found one green colour plastic bottle containing 1.2 liters of ID liquor. Then LW.3 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain. As the possession, transportation and sale of liquor without licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of the

A.P.Excise Excise Act, LW.3 informed the same to the accused, arrested him and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report drafted thereat by him, as none came forward to act as mediators. Basing on occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case against the accused under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and issued FIR and brought the accused and case property to the police station. Then

LW.3 drew sample from the seized property for the purpose of analysis and he sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis. He served notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C on the accused and released him on station bail. Later he handed over the further investigation to LW.4, who received analysis report opining that the said liquor was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption. After completion of further investigation LW.4 laid the charge sheet

before the Court against the accused. Thereby, the accused is liable for

punishment under the above Section of law.

4.Cognizance was taken by this Court for the offence under Section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, was framed and the same was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language i.e. Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined LW.3 as PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

3

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused was found in possession of 1.2 liters of ID liquor in a plastic bottle at the scene of offence?

2) Whether the said liquor bottle was seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence ?

POINT NOS.1 TO 3 :

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 the prosecution shall prove that the accused was found in possession of 1.2 liters of ID liquor in a plastic bottle for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit in that regard and the same is seized from the possession of the accused as per the procedure laid down under law.

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PW.1 in the first instance as deposed by him that on 20.05.2020 at about 09.00 P.M, on credible information, himself, along with staff conducted raid at locks Mukkamala centre of Ambajipeta in Govt Jeep. Thereat they noticed one person selling ID illicit liquor. On seeing them the accused tried to ran away therefrom but the staff detained him. On his enquiry, the accused disclosed his identity particulars and on verification they found 1.2 liter of ID Illicit liquor in a plastic bottle. Later he lifted 100 ml liquor as sample ie. M.O.1 for analysis purpose 4 and got affixed Identification slips on M.O.1 as well as the remaining seized property. He seized the said contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1/Occurrence report and registered the case as Cr.No.110/2020 and issued Ex.P.2/FIR under

Sections 188 of IPC and 8B of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995. He served Section 41A

Cr.P.C notice on the accused and released him. Later he sent M.O.1 sample to the chemical examiner for chemical analysis purpose under Ex.P.3/letter of advice and received Ex.P.4/analysis report from Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, wherein he opined that said sample was Indian Made Liquor. After completion of investigation LW.4/Sk.Jani Basha filed the charge sheet against the accused

before the Court.

12.During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.1 stated that that the offence took place during Covid-19 and the scene of offence is a busy locality having a Panchayat Secretary and VRO; and that he tried to secure the independent mediators through his staff but could not find any, that Ex.P.1 is a printed format and the same was not signed by his staff; that there is a delay in sending the sample for analysis purpose but he did not produce the remaining seized property in the Court and he did not examine any independent witnesses, that he did not examine the person and the place from where the accused purchased the said contraband. However, he denied the suggestions that the sample sent for chemical examinations should be received back with seal and the offence never took place, the accused never committed any offence and the present case was filed for statistical purposes.

13.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose.

He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case 5 and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the

Cr.P.C. They thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

15.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in the possession of the accused but nobody came forward to act as mediators. It is manifest that no independent witnesses were examined in this case. From the evidence of PW.1, it is not axiomatic as to who were requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise,

PW.1 is police official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that he did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was obvious from the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the

Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C.

16.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the

A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police 6 officials. …......The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/ witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 30.05.2020 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 20.05.2020 when the alleged samples was drawn. Thus, there was a delay of 11 days in reaching the sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the 7 police official-PW.1, who is very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of ID liquor and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures.

Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT NO.4:

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

Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the

Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the

Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:K.V.Nagarjuna, S.I. of Police.None

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Nil Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P.4: Chemical Analysis report.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 is sample bottle.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by MS.Sunkara Srirekha, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.601/2020 in Cr.No.110/2020

Date of Offence: 20.05.2020 Date of Report : 20.05.2020 Date of arrest of Accused : 20.05.2020 Date of release on bail: 20.05.2020 (Section 41A notice) Date of commencement of Trial : 04.11.2025 Date of close of Trial: 22.11.2025 Date of sentence or order11.05.2026 Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station.

Name of the accused: Sanaboyina Srinu @ Yedukondalu, S/o Subbarao, Age 40 years, Nedunuru Village, Ainavilli Mandal.

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

Plea of Accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

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

Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the

Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the

Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

1

APEG0B0012232018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Ms.SUNKARA SRIREKHA.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

C.C.NO.733/2018

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station. … Complainant. And:

1) Janupalli Naveen, S/o Pallayya, Age 25 Years, D.No.2-21, Baba Nagar, Pulletikurru Village of Ambajipeta Mandal.

2) Janupalli Pallalamma W/o Pallayya, Age 52 Years, D.NO.2-21, Baba Nagar, Pulletikurru Village of Ambajipeta Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 06.05.2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for A.1 and Sri P.Radha Krishna for A.2, and upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.98 of 2018 of Ambajipeta Police Station registered against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the basis of the report lodged by LW1/Cheekatla Dhanalakshmi.

2.LW6/Sri K.V. Nagarjuna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station, laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC as against A1 and under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC as against A2.

2

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

3.LW.1 stated that A.1 and A.2 used to pick up quarrels unnecessarily with the family members of LW.1 and used to create disturbance in their house. On 20.07.2018 at about 4.00 P.M., LW.3/Sabbithi Srilakshmi went to the house of

LW.1 and, while stepping into the threshold of the house, was about to slip and fall as the floor was slippery. On that, LW.3 jokingly remarked to LW.1 and her daughter LW.2/Cheekatla Rekha as to whether there was any superstitious power (“Gali” and “Dhuli”) in their house. In reply, LW.2 answered that there were no such superstitious powers in their house, and they all giggled and had fun. On hearing the said jokes and giggling, A.1 and A.2 misunderstood the same, thinking that the said jokes and giggling were aimed at them, and raised a dispute with LW.1, uttering “Yenti Gali Dhuli Antunnaru”. Thereupon, A.1 shouted at LW.1 and beat her with a wooden plank, as a result of which LW.1 sustained a bleeding injury on her forehead. A.2 abused LW.1 in filthy language and made her fall on the ground, causing abrasions on her person. Immediately, LWs.2 to 4, who witnessed the occurrence, rescued LW.1 and shifted her to Area Hospital, Amalapuram, where she was admitted for treatment. After administering first aid, the doctor referred

LW.1 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for better treatment. It is further the case of the prosecution that the elders tried their level best to pacify the matter between the accused and LW1, but the accused did not heed their words. Hence,

LW1 lodged a report at Ambajipeta Police Station against the accused.

4.On receipt of the said report, LW6/K.V.Nagarjuna, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case, issued FIR, and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined LWs.1 to 4, namely, Cheekatla

Dhanalakshmi, Cheekatla Rekha, Sabbithi Srilakshmi and Sabbithi Venkata Rao, and recorded their detailed statements. LW5/Dr.G.Ravi Kiran, the Medical Officer who treated LW1, issued the wound certificate and opined that the injuries sustained by LW1 were simple in nature. On 13.08.2018, LW6 served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on the accused and released them on station bail.

After completion of investigation, LW6 filed the charge sheet before the Court.

3

5.Basing on the allegations in the charge sheet and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2 (herein after referred as accused).

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides and upon considering the entire material on record, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, their vernacular language. The accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, LW4/Sabbithi

Venkatarao, LW5/Dr.Ravi Kiran and LW6/K.V.Nagarjuna were examined as

PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The details thereof are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused herein were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution in their vernacular language, as envisaged under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, defence evidence was closed.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

10. Now the point that arise for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Sections 324, 323, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.To prove the offences alleged, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused hurt under Section 323 IPC; 4 that, for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the hurt was caused by using a dangerous weapon or dangerous means with the necessary intention or knowledge; that, for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the accused intentionally gave a threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property of the victim with the intention to cause alarm or to make the victim do, or not do, something which he was legally entitled to do; and that all these acts were done by the accused in furtherance of their common intention, so as to attract Section 34 IPC.

12.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the investigating officer cited as many as 6 witnesses in the charge sheet. As the evidence of LW.1 is closed on filing the Death Certificate of LW.1 and LWs.2 and 3 evidence is also closed as per the report submitted by the prosecution stating that their whereabouts are not known, rest of the witnesses examined as PW.1 to PW.3. Among PW.1 to PW3,

PW.1 is the elder brother of LW.1 and, PW.2 is the Medical officer who rendered treatment to LW.1 and PW.3 is the Investigating Officer in this case.

13.As seen from the evidence adduced before the Court, the testimony of

PW.1, who was the eye witness to the offence, deposed that he did not know anything about the case and the police neither examined him and nor recorded his

Ex.P.1 statement.

14.During the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not know anything about the case. he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false.

15.PW.2, Dr. G. Ravi Kiran, deposed that on 20.07.2018 at about 5.45 P.M., he examined LW.1/Cheekatla Dhanalakshmi and found a laceration measuring about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right side of her forehead. He stated that MLC No.1655 and X-ray No.12616 revealed no demonstrable injury. He issued Ex.P2, the wound certificate, and opined that the injury was simple in nature, that the age of the injury was less than six hours, and that it might have been caused by a blunt object.

5

16.During his cross-examination, he accepted the suggestion that the injury might also have been caused due to a sudden fall on the steps.

17.PW.3, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 02.08.2018 at about 10.30

A.M., LW.1/Ch. Dhanalakshmi and LW.2/Ch.Rekha came to the police station and submitted a written report. Based on the said report, he registered the case and issued Ex.P3, the FIR. He stated that he immediately examined LWs.1 and 2 at the police station and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence and examined LW.3/S.Srilakshmi and PW.1 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 13.08.2018, A.1 and A.2 came to the police station, and he served notices on them under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. On 12.10.2018, he received the wound certificate from PW.2. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against A.1 and A.2.

18.During his cross-examination, he stated that the mention in the charge sheet that notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. were served on A.1 to A.3 was only a printing mistake. He further stated that, except LW.1, none of the other residents shown in Ex.P4 were examined by him, and except the relatives of LW.1, no independent witnesses were included in the list of witnesses. He denied the suggestions that he never visited the scene of offence, never examined the witnesses as stated by him, did not conduct the investigation properly, and that the accused did not commit the offence and were falsely implicated due to disputes with LW.1.

19.As PW.1 did not support the prosecution version in material aspects, the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW1 as hostile and cross examined him with the permission of the court. PW1 denied that he stated before the police as mentioned in Ex.P.2. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.1, which aids the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused with respect to the material allegations levelled against the accused.

20.The evidence of PW.2 also does not help the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused. His evidence only shows that LW.1 sustained a simple injury and 6 that it might have been caused by a blunt object. It does not show who caused the injury. In his cross-examination, PW.2 also admitted that such injury might be caused by a fall on the steps. Therefore, his evidence does not fully support the prosecution case leaving room for the alternate source of injury. It is settled law that expert evidence is only opinion evidence. By itself, and without reliable corroboration, it has limited evidentiary value. In the present case, the injured witness was not examined, the other material witnesses were not examined, and

PW.1 did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 only proves that there was an injury, but it does not prove that the accused caused that injury. In the absence of clear and reliable supporting evidence, the uncorroborated evidence of PW.2 cannot be made basis to hold the accused guilty.

21.The sole testimony of PW.3 cannot be relied upon to convict the accused, as it is a well-established principle that it is unsafe to convict the accused based on the uncorroborated evidence of police unless it imparts the confidence of the

Court. The evidence of PW.3 does not gain the confidence of this court, as it is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged as it is not corroborated by evidence of material witnesses. Since PW.1 being the crucial witness turned hostile, The learned APP had given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose will be served by examining them.

22.In such facts and circumstances, the court finds no incriminating material to hold that the accused had committed the offences he is charged with. Therefore, this court holds that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

23.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of the CrPC of the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the 7 accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under

Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property was seized or produced in this case.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Sabbithi Venkata Rao.None PW.2 : Dr.G.Ravi Kiran. PW.3: Sk.Jani Basha, S.I. of Police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 161 of theNil Cr.P.C. Ex.P.2: Wound Certificate. Ex.P.3: FIR. Ex.P.4: Rough sketch.

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

Add.Civil Judge (Jr.Division)-cum- Addl.Judl First Class Magistrate Amalapuram 8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Ms.Sunkara Srirekha, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.733/2018 in Cr.No.98/2018

Date of Offence: 16.07.2018 Date of Report : 02.08.2018 Date of arrest of Accused : 13.08.2018 Date of release on bail: 13.08.2018 (Section 41A notice) Date of commencement of Trial : 15.12.2022 Date of close of Trial: 19.11.2025 Date of sentence or order: 11.05.2026 Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police Station.

Name of the accused:

1) Janupalli Naveen, S/o Pallayya, Age 25 Years, D.No.2-21, Baba Nagar, Pulletikurru Village of Ambajipeta Mandal.

2) Janupalli Pallalamma W/o Pallayya, Age 52 Years, D.NO.2-21, Baba Nagar, Pulletikurru Village of Ambajipeta Mandal.

Offence: under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Plea of Accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, A.1 and A.2 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of the CrPC of the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under

Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property was seized or produced in this case.

Sd/- Ms.Sunkara Srirekha

AdditionalCivil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.