Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Court of Addl. Junior Civil Judge (new), Tuni (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka, ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Court of Addl. Junior Civil Judge (new), Tuni (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,793 court orders on record since 2022. 14 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

1,793

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/281/2023 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh State represented by S.I. of Police, S.E.B Tuni. vs Chinni Appalanaidu

22 Apr 2025

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 1 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

TUNI

PRESENT: SMT. SWARNA LATHA VOLGA MARKA,

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, TUNI

Tuesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO : 281 /2023

Between: The Sub-inspector of police, S.E.B.Tuni P.S. …. Complainant.

And:

Chinni Appalanaidu, S/o.Nookaraju, at about A/32 years, C/Settibalija, R/o.N.N.Patnam,

Rowthulapudi Mandal. ....Accused

This case is coming on 21.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri.M.B.V.V.N.S.M, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the S.E.B., Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni, had filed charge sheet in Cr.No.536/2021, for the offences punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(A) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows:

On 30.09.2021 at about 2.00 P.M. L.W.4/B.Srinivasarao received credible information about illegal possession of F.J.Wash at N.N.Patam village,

Rowthulapudi Mandal. Immediately LW4 along with his staff conducted patrolling to the scene of offence. They noticed one male person in possession of 13 plastic drums and each drum has 200 liters of F.J.Wash, totally 2600 liters of F.J.Wash. Arrested the accused and seized the contraband which is in violation of A.P. prohibition Act 2020. On questioning by L.W.4 the accused revealed his identity. L.W.4 drew on sample containing 300 ml of F.J.Wash for chemical analysis purpose from the above contraband, sealed and labeled the contraband and sample under cover of special report drafted on the spot by

L.W.4. Basing on the special report L.W.4 registered a case in crime No.

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 2 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025 536/2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(A) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. LW4

Prohibition & Excise sub inspector sent the sample bottle to Chemical

Examiner of Proh & Excise, Kakinada. After receiving the report LW4 filed charge sheet.

3. After considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w. 8(A) of A.P Prohibition (amendment) Act 2020.

4. After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. The charge for the offence punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(A) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, framed and explained to the accused in Telugu and for which accused pleaded not guilt and claims to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, On behalf of the prosecution, LW4 is examined as PW1, L.W.5 is examined as P.W.2, L.W.2 is examined as P.W.3,

L.W.1 is examined as P.W.4, the learned A.P.P had given up the evidence of

L.W.3 and L.W.6, Ex. P1 to P7 were marked.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and for the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution against the accused is read over and explained to them in Telugu and Having understood the same, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences U/s.7(B) r/w.8(A) of A.P.P. act.2020, beyond reasonable

doubt?

POINT

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 4 and

Ex.P1 to P7 were marked.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidence of PW.1 to 4 coupled with Ex P1 to P7, are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 3 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025

12. P.W.1/Chalamasetti Tateelu,PW.2-Chinni Suribabu who are the eye witness to the incident deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Police have not examined them and not recorded their statements. The

L.d A.P.P could not elicit anything in her favour except marking of their 161 statements as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively.

13.To prove their case Prosecution had examined LW.2 as PW3, deposed that On 30.09.2021 at about 02.00 P.M. He accompanied with LW.1 and other staff as a part of raid, they proceeded to N.N.Patnam village of Rowthulapudi mandal. There they noticed that the one male person was preparing I.D arrack from F.J wash. By seeing them the accused ran away. LW.1 deputed him to secure mediators but in vain. LW.1 noticed that there were 13 plastic drums and each plastic drum contains 200 liters of F.J Wash. LW.1 drew 500 ml of sample and affixed the identification slips on sample bottle which contain the signatures of P.W.3, LW.1. LW.1 destroyed the remaining F.J wash at the scene of offence. On enquiry by LW.1, the accused name is Chinni Appalanaidu S/o

Nukaraju, N.N Patnam village of Rowthulapudi mandal. LW.1 drafted the special report.

14. During the cross examination of PW.3 it was elicited that the scene of offence is busy locality. He did not serve any notice to the independent persons to act as mediators. The N.N patnam village is a major panchayat. In the Ex.P1 there is no mention about efforts made by them to secure the mediator. The sample bottles is a used bottle. It is true that the scene of offence is residential area but No independent witnesses were examined and present at the scene of offence place. It is true that rough sketch was not drafted. He denied the suggestion that they did not went to the scene of offence and did not drafted the case for statistical purpose and that he had foisted a false case and that the Ex.P1 was drafted in the police station.

15. To prove their case, prosecution further examined LW.1 as P.W.4 deposed that on 30.09.2021 at about 2.00 P.M. He received credible information about making of I.D arrack from F.J Wash. Then P.W.4 along with his staff conducted raid at N.N.Patnam village of Rowthulapudi mandal. They found one person mixing the F.J.Wash. By seeing us the accused ran away and they searched for the accused and also enquired the villagers. At the time of search they found that 13 Plastic Drums and each drum has 200 liters of F.J

Wash, totally 13x200=2600 liters. They destroyed the F.J wash at the scene of

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 4 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025 offence place. He obtained 500ml of sample of F.J wash sealed and labeled the bottles. On enquiry by P.W.4 to the villagers they stated that that the accused namely, Chinni Appalanaidu, S/o Nukaraju, R/o N.N.Patnam village of

Rowthulapudi Mandal. I prepared the special report and P.W.4, PW.3 signed on the special report. Basing on the special report he registered the case in

Cr.No.536/2021 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A) of A.P.Prohibition

Act. On 29.10.2021 LW.3 went to the N.N.Patnam village for arresting the accused, but in vain. On 24.02.2022 he proceeded to the N.N.Patnam village for investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW.4 and LW.5.

On 12.09.2023 he arrested the accused and produce before the Court for judicial remand. On 30.10.2021 LW.3 sent the samples for chemical analysis.

LW.6 filed charge sheet.

16. During the cross examination of PW.4 it was elicited that he do not remember the time at which they started from raid. He did not obtained the certificate from MRO that the scene of offence comes is in the Rowthulapudi mandal. He denied the suggestion that the F.J wash is used for organic forms.

He did not asked the Grama Sachivalayam Staff, VRO, VRA to act as mediators.

He denied the suggestion that he did not follow the 100(4) procedure. The sample bottle is used bottle and that they drafted the case for the statistical purpose and that he had foisted a false case.

17. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P7, well supports the case of the prosecution and there by the

Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed the court to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand the learned Counsel for the accused argued that

P.W.4 is excise official who is interested in the investigation of this case and their evidence shall not be sole basis to convict the accused. He further argued that the confession made by the accused before the Police officer is hit by

Section 25,26 of Indian Evidence Act and it shall not be taken in to consideration and the procedure contemplated under 100(4) is not followed.

Hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

19.On careful perusal of evidence of P.W.4 who deposed in his evidence that even though they he deputed one of the staff members to secure the independent mediators none come forward to act as mediators and also did

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 5 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025 not mention the names of the mediators whom P.W.3 asked to act as independent mediators in the special report.

20.According to Section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code before making a search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality. If such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to them so to do. But in this case prosecution did not followed the procedure contemplated U/s 100 (4) Criminal Procedure Code and also failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent mediators. Therefore it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of police officer who is having interest in the prosecution case to convict the accused in the absence of other material evidence on record.

21. Further more the confession made by the accused before the Excise police officials, in the absence independent mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of the I.D.Arrack hit by sec.25,26 of Indian Evidence Act. It is not safe to relay on the evidence of PW.1 to convict the accused. It was held in Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P.(2) 2002(1)ALT (Crl.) 437(A.P.), where in Hon’ble High Court of A.P. inter alia held at para 5 as follows: “It was observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offences then they become equal to police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become in admissible. Therefore, seizure is hit under sec.25, 26 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. Therefore, It is not to safe to reply on the evidence of P.W.4 to convict the accused.

22. Though the C.E. report was marked the investigating officer did not produce the samples that were sent to chemical analysis which creates to doubt as to the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the point to be considered is that in this case complainant and the investigating officer is one and the same. Infact, a complainant cannot be an investigating officer. From the evidence it is found that the I/O has not made any effort to secure independent witnesses though it was a busy locality.

23. Therefore in the light of above decision, the evidence of P.W.4, cannot be sole basis to convict the accused in the absence of other cogent evidence.

The seizure was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of other independent

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 6 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025 testimony believing the evidence of investigating officer to convict the accused may leads to miscarriage of Justice.

24. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.7(B) r/w 8(A) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted as per sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate Tuni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1:Chinnamsetti Tateelu P.W.2: Chinni Suribabu P.W.3:B.Rajesh P.W.4:B.Srinivasarao

For Defence :None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3:Special report Ex.P4:FIR Ex.P5:Rough sketch Ex.P6;Letter of advice Ex.P7: C.E.report

For Defence : NIL

Material Objects

Nil

A.J.F.C.M

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 7 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: TUNI

C.C. 281 /2023

Date of Offence:30.09.2021

Date of Report :30.09.2021

Date of arrest of Accused :30.09.2021

Date of Release of accused on bail:15.09.2023

Date of commencement of Trial :22.01.2025

Date of close of Trial:17.04.2025

Date of sentence or order:22.04.2025

Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.536/2023 of S.E.B Tuni P.S

Name of the Complainant:State : The State Represented by S.E.B. Tuni P.S

Name of the accused:Chinni Appalanaidu, S/o.Nookaraju, A/32 years,C/Settibalija,R/o.N.N.PatnamVillage, Rowthulapudi Mandal.

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

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 2020 and accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse six months.

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

TUNI.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 8 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025 A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 9 C.C.281/23 Dt.22.04.2025

CC/284/2023 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh State represented by S.I. of Police, S.E.B Tuni vs Karri Nageswararao @ Pamayya

22 Apr 2025

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 1 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

TUNI

PRESENT: SMT. SWARNA LATHA VOLGA MARKA,

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, TUNI

Tuesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO : 284 /2023

Between: The Sub-inspector of police, S.E.B.Tuni P.S. …. Complainant.

And:

Karri Nageswararao @Pamayya, S/o.Ramaswamy, at about A/28 years, C/SC-mala, R/o.S.Annavaram village,

Tuni village and Mandal. ....Accused

This case is coming on 21.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri.Y.Lova Krishna, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the S.E.B., Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni, had filed charge sheet in Cr.No.874/2021, for the offences punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows:

On 24.12.2021 at about 3.30 P.M. L.W.4/B.Srinivasarao received credible information about illegal possession of F.J.Wash at Rajupeta village, Tuni

Mandal. Immediately LW4 along with his staff conducted patrolling to the scene of offence. They noticed one male person in possession of 24 plastic drums and each drum has 200 liters of F.J.Wash, totally 4000 liters of F.J.Wash.

Arrested the accused and seized the contraband which is in violation of A.P.

prohibition Act 2020. On questioning by L.W.4 the accused revealed his identity. L.W.4 drew on sample containing 300 ml of F.J.Wash for chemical analysis purpose from the above contraband, sealed and labeled the

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 2 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025 contraband and sample under cover of special report drafted on the spot by

L.W.4. Basing on the special report L.W.4 registered a case in crime No.

874/2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. LW4

Prohibition & Excise sub inspector sent the sample bottle to Chemical

Examiner of Proh & Excise, Kakinada. After receiving the report LW4 filed charge sheet.

3. After considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (amendment) Act 2020.

4. After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. The charge for the offence punishable u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, framed and explained to the accused in Telugu and for which accused pleaded not guilt and claims to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, On behalf of the prosecution, LW5 is examined as PW1, L.W.1 is examined as P.W.2, L.W.4 is examined as P.W.3 the learned A.P.P had given up the evidence of L.W.2, L.W.3, L.W.6 and L.W.7, Ex.

P1 to P6 were marked.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.P. act.2020, beyond reasonable

doubt?

POINT

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 3 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witness PW1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 were marked.

11.The learned APP has argued that the evidence of PW.1 and 2 coupled with Ex P1 to P6 are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.

12. PW.2-Ginjala Lovaraju deposed that he do not know the accused. Police did not enquire him about the accused whether he is preparing I.D.arrack at their village. He did not state to the police that accused is preparing I.D.arrack and transporting in to other places. Police have not examined him and not recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

13.To prove there case Prosecution had examined LW.1 as PW2, deposed that On 2412.2021 at about 3.30 P.M. He received credible information about making of I.D arrack from F.J Wash. Then himself along with his staff conducted raid beside Peddagadda Vagu, Rajupeta village of Tuni mandal. The accused ran away on seeing the police. He deputed LW.2 to secure the mediators but in vain. He enquired about the accused particulars. At the time of search he found that 24 Plastic Drums and each drum has 200 liters of F.J

Wash, totally 4000 liters, and also one white coloured gunny bag containing 4 polythene covers, and each cover contains 10 liters of I.D arrack. He destroyed the F.J wash at the scene of offence place. He obtained 500ml of sample of F.J wash and 300 ml of I.D arrack, sealed and labeled the bottles. He prepared the special report and P.W.2, LW.3 signed on the special report. He handed over the case property and case record to LW.3. Basing on the special report LW.13 registered the case in Cr.No.874/2021 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the Special report. Ex.P4 is

Rough Sketch.

14. During the cross examination of PW.2 it was elicited that the sample bottle is used bottle. The scene of offence is place is busy locality. The

Rajupeta village is Major panchayat and has VRO and VRA and other revenue persons. He did not measure the contraband. He denied the suggestion that he did not followed 100 (4) procedure and that they drafted the case for the statistical purpose and that he had foisted a false case..

15. To prove there case, prosecution further examined LW.4 as P.W.3 deposed that On 02.01.2022 he went to the Lovakothuru village in search of

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 4 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025 accused. On 08.01.2022 P.W.3 proceeded to Rajupeta village of Tuni mandal.

For further investigation and he recorded the statements of LW.5 and LW.6.

The accused obtained Anticipatory bail. On 12.03.2022 he sent the sample bottles for Chemical Analysis. On 27.03.2022 he received the C.E report. Ex.P5 is letter of advise. Ex.P6 is the C.E report. LW.7 filed charge sheet.

16. During the cross examination of PW.3 it was elicited that the scene of offence is an busy road. He did not secure the VRO, VRA for acting as mediators. He denied the suggestion that he did not follow the 100(4) procedure. The sample bottle is used bottle. There is a delay of 70 days for sending sample bottles. He denied the suggestion that they drafted the case for the statistical purpose and that he had foisted a false case.

17. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P6 , well supports the case of the prosecution and there by the

Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed the court to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand the learned Counsel for the accused argued that

P.W.2 and 3 are excise officials who are interested in the investigation of this case and their evidence shall not be sole basis to convict the accused. He further argued that the confession made by the accused before the Police officer is hit by Section 25,26 of Indian Evidence Act and it shall not be taken in to consideration and the procedure contemplated under 100(4) is not followed. Hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

19.P.W.1 who is the eye witness to the incident did not speak anything about this case. On careful perusal of evidence of P.W.3 who deposed in his evidence that even though they deputed one of the staff members to secure the independent mediators none come forward to act as mediators and also did not mention the names of the mediators whom P.W.2 asked to act as independent mediators in the special report.

20. Further, Chemical analysis report Ex.P3, there is delay of 70 days in sending the sample to chemical analysis Laboratory, Kakinada. However, the said delay was not explained properly, As has been inter alia observed in S.

BABU SAHEB @ BABU Vs STATE OF A.P.[2010(1) ALT (CRL.)32] and 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437(A.P.).

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 5 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025

21. According to Section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code before making a search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality. If such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to them so to do. But in this case prosecution did not followed the procedure contemplated U/s 100 (4) Criminal Procedure Code and also failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent mediators. Therefore it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of police officer who is having interest in the prosecution case to convict the accused in the absence of other material evidence on record.

22. Further more the confession made by the accused before the Excise police officials, in the absence independent mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of the I.D.Arrack hit by sec.25,26 of Indian Evidence Act. It is not safe to relay on the evidence of PW.1 to convict the accused. It was held in Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P.(2) 2002(1)ALT (Crl.) 437(A.P.), where in Hon’ble High Court of A.P. inter alia held at para 5 as follows: “It was observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offences then they become equal to police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become in admissible. Therefore, seizure is hit under sec.25, 26 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. Therefore, It is not to safe to reply on the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 to convict the accused.

23. Though the C.E. report was marked the investigating officer did not produce the samples that were sent to chemical analysis which creates to doubt as to the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the point to be considered is that in this case complainant and the investigating officer is one and the same. Infact, a complainant cannot be an investigating officer. From the evidence it is found that the I/O has not made any effort to secure independent witnesses though it was a busy locality.

24. Therefore in the light of above decision, the evidence of P.W.2 and 3, cannot be sole basis to convict the accused in the absence of other cogent evidence. The seizure was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of other independent

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 6 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025 testimony believing the evidence of investigating officer to convict the accused may leads to miscarriage of Justice.

25. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted as per sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled subject to provisions of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.,

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate Tuni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1:Ginjala Lovaraju P.W.2: T.Ganesh P.W.3:B.Srinivasarao

For Defence :None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2:FIR Ex.P.3:Special report Ex.P.4:rough sketch Ex.P.5:Letter of advice Ex.P.6;C.E.report

For Defence : NIL Material Objects

Nil

A.J.F.C.M

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 7 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: TUNI

C.C. 284 /2023

Date of Offence: 24.12.2021

Date of Report : 24.12.2021

Date of arrest of Accused : 24.12.2021

Date of Release of accused on bail: 14.06.2022

Date of commencement of Trial : 08.01.2024

Date of close of Trial: 17.04.2025

Date of sentence or order: 22.04.2025

Crime No. and Name of the P.S: Cr.No.284/2023 of S.E.B Tuni P.S

Name of the Complainant: State : The State Represented by S.E.B. Tuni P.S

Name of the accused: KarriNageswararao@Pamayya, S/o.Ramaswamy, at about A/28 years, C/SC-mala, R/o.S.Annavaram village, Tuni village and Mandal. Offence: U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act.

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 2020 and accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse six months.

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

TUNI. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 8 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025 A.J.F.C.M.,TUNI. 9 C.C.284/23 Dt.22.04.2025

CC/162/2017 Acquitted

STATE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THONDANGI POLICE STATION vs BOYIDI CHANDRA RAO

14 Jul 2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: TUNI::

Present: Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni.

Thursday, the 14 th day of July, 2023

Calender Case No.162 of 2017

Between:

Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station

...Complainant.

and

1Boyidi Chandrarao, S/o Veerraju, A/60 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal.

2 Nemala Rani, W/o Srinivasarao, A/28 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal.

3 Boyidi Nagamani, W/o Chandrarao, A/50 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal.(died)

4. Thupati Chella Ratnam, W/o Venkateswarlu, A/30 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal.

5 S/o Penatayya, A/50 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal.

6 Madiki Dandamma, W/o Krishna, A/50 yrs, Caste by Yadava, R/o Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal

...Accused

This case has come before this court on 11-07-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.N.Sunitha, learned Asst.Public Prosecutor and Sri

Y.S.N.M Murty, counsel for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having the matter stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the Inspector of Police, Thondangi,

Town P.S., had filed charge sheet in Cr.No.39/2016 of his station for the offence punishable under Secs.324, 323 R/w.34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows:-

On 09.04.2016 at about 8-00 AM while LW-1 Muthimilli Lakshmi was returning home from the house of her mother i.e., LW-2Nemala Raghava, situated in the village of Srungavruksham along the road by walk, when she reached near the house of Yanamal Danayya, A1 to A6 with common intention pounced up on her and assaulted her with hands. Among them A6 pelted stone against LW-1 and as a result stone hit against fore head of LW-1 who sustained injury. A4 inflicted injury over left hand of LW-1 with kitchen knife and where as A5 assaulted LW-1 with a stick and caused injury on her back due to dispute pending disposal among LW-1 and A1 regarding house site

After the occurrence offence in this case, LWS 1 & 2 visited Thondangi Police

Station and among them LW-1 orally stated about occurrence of offence

before LW-6 ASI 1394 of Thondangi Police Station. Immediately LW-6 reduced

the statement of LW-1 in writing thumb impression of LW-1 on the bottom of statement recorded by him and on 09.04.2016 at 9:30 AM, obtained afterwards he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 39/2016 U/Sec. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC of Thondangi Police Station and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, LW-6 examined LWS 1 & 2 near

Thondangi Police Station and recorded their statements in Part-ll of the Case

Diary. Thereafter LW-6 sent injured/LW-1 to the Area Hospital, Tuni for treatment and also for want of wound certificate. LW-6 visited scene of offence and examined the same. He prepared rough sketch of the same, examined LWs 3 & 4 at the place of offence and recorded their statements in

Part-II of the Case Diary. On 14.04.2016 LW-7 SI of Police, Thondangi P.S took up investigation in this case and verified the investigation so-far done by LW- 6 and found to be done on correct lines. Further he served notices against A1 to A6 as per provision 2 of law U/Sec. 41A CrPC on 07.05.2016 at 10-00 AM by directing accused persons to appear before Hon'ble Court on the date of adjournment. LW-7 also obtained wound certificate in respect of injured/LW-1 from Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Tuni after completion investigation

L.W.7 filed charge sheet this case.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under U/s.323, 324, R/w.34 IPC.

4. After appearance of the accused, the case copies furnished to them as per Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Thereafter, the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for offence punishable U/s.324,323 of IPC. The charge leveled against the accused is read over and explained to them in Telugu and for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 have been examined and Ex.P1 to P.6 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is under Sec.313

Cr.P.C., and for the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu and Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond

all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked.

11.To prove there case prosecution examined PW1 deposed that before 6 years back at about 8 AM, when P.W.1was returning from her parents house with milk to her house. While she reached the house of Mandamma, A1 to

A6 , questioned her as to why she she was coming in this way and why she was seeing their grinding item. Then A1 and A6 pounced on her and beat her with hands and A4 hacked her with a knife on her left wrist. A2 and A6 had thrown stones on her and she sustained bleeding injury on her head. A5 assaulted her with a stick on her back. Hence, she lodged report to

Vantimamidi P.S.

12.To prove there case prosecution examined PW2 who deposed that about 6 1/2 years ago in the morning her daughter PW.1 collected milk from her house and she proceeded to her house. She learnt that when her daughter reached A4 house, Al to A6 beat her daughter. when she went to the place of incident and seen A1 to A6 beating her daughter with hands and A5 beat Pw.1 over her back with stick and A6 pelted stones on Pw.1 and sustained injury over her head.

13. PW3 &4 who are the eye witness to this incident turned hostile and did not support case of the prosecution. The learned A.P.P sought permission to cross examination the witness but nothing was elicited except marking of

Ex.P2 and P3.

14. PW5 deposed that on 9.4.2016 at about 11.15 AM, he has examined

PW.1 Muthimilli Lakshmi and found that she sustained head injury associated with loss of consciousness and ENT bleed. He opined that the said injures are simple in nature. But on examination there is no evidence external injury. No radiological evidence of bone injury or extra dural hemorrhage found.

15.P.W.6 deposed that on 09.04.2016 at about 9.30 am, P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a report basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.NO.39/2016,for the offence U/s.323,324,r/w.34 I.P.C and he handed over the investigation to L.W.7 S.I of police filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

16. The learned A.P.P submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 are sufficient to convict the accused. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W6 suffered many contradictions and omissions and prayed this court to acquit the Accused No.1 to 6.

17.After careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 to 6.

P.W.1 categorically deposed that before 6 years back at about 8. A.M, while P.W.1 returning from her parents house with milk to her house when

P.W.1 reachaed the house of Mandamma, then A1 to A6 questioned her as to why she was coming in that way and watching the grinding items. Upon that 5

A1 to A6 pounced on her and beat P.W.1 with hands and A4 hacked P.W.1 with knief on her left wrist. A2 and A6 had pelted stones on P.W.1 and she sustained bleeding injury over her head. A5 assaulted her with stick on her back.

18. P.W.2 deposed that when she got to know that A1 to A6 beat her daughter P.W.1 whens she rushed to place of incident she saw A1 to A6 beating her daughter, A5 beat P.W.1 over her back with stick and A6 hit P.W1 with stone over P.W.1 fore head. But in the cross examination P.W.2 admitted that when she went to the rescue of PW1 then A3 twisted her hand and thereby her hand got fractured but there is no evidence to corroborate such injury. The chief examination and cross examination of P.W.2 had suffered many contradictions and omissions.

19.But P.W.5 the doctor who examined P.W1 deposed that there is no evidence of external injury and also no radiological evidence of bone injury or extra dural hemorrage found further admitted that such injuries can occur if the person falls on rough surface. Therefore there is no corroboration of the injuries inflicted on P.W.1 with the wound certificate vide EX.P4.

Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW5 in relation to the inuries sustained by the P.W.1.

20. P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are the eye witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

21.Another contention raised by the defence counsel is that the P.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that the statement given to the police EX.P1 was written by a Brahmin person, but the P.W.6 who is the then S.I of police deposed that he had reduced the statement Ex.P.1 in writing as per the instructions of P.W.1 and no scene observation wasdrafted and had not seized any objects.

22. Therefore view of the above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W1 to

P.W.6, P.W.2 is the only eye witness but her evidence there is no corroboration 6 in between chief and cross examination. Therefore the reasons stated above this court is of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused A1 to A6. Accordingly this point is answered.

23. In the result, the accused A1,A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324,323 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused A1,

A2, A4 to A6. if any, shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The case against A3 is abated as she died as per docket order dated.29.03.2018.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 14 th day of

July, 2023.

SD/Smt.Swarnalatha Volga Marka

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TUNI

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1: Muthimilli Lakshmi None

P.W.2:Nemala Raghava

P.W.3: Injarapu Babulu

P.W.4:Injarapu Nagu

P.W.5:Dr.MG.Srinivasa Sarma

P.W.6:Jakki Bhageeradhudu

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Ex.P1: Statement of Muthimili LakshmiNil

Ex.P2: Statement of L.W.4

Ex.P3: Statement of L.W.3

Ex.P4: wound certificate 7

Ex.P5: F.I.R

Ex.P6: rough sketch

Smt.Swarnalatha VolgaMarka A.J.M.F.C., Tuni.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District: East Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni

Date of OffenceReport orApprehensionRelease onCommence-Closure of TrialSentence or complaintof accusedbailment of trialOrder 09-04-201609-04-201609-04-2016 07-05-201618-01-202328-06-202314-07-2023

Explanation of delay and Remarks:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is required to attend this court beyond three times.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.162/2017 on the file of Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Tuni.

Name of the complainant: - State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Tuni

Name of the accusedHusband’s/Father NameAge 1.Boyidi Chandrarao,Veerraju60years

2. Nemala RaniSrivasrao28years 3.Boyidi Nagamani,(died) Chandrarao50 years 4.Thupati Chella RatnamVenkateswarlu30 years 5.Madiki Apparao,Pentayya50 years 6.Madiki DandammaKrishna50 years

ReligionCallingResidenceMandal

Hindu---SrungavrukshamThondangi Mandal

Nature of offence: Under Sec. Sec.324,323 r/w.34 of I.P.C.,

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused A1,A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324,323 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted under 9

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused A1, A2, A4 to A6. if any, shall stand cancelled subject to provisions of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The case against A3 is abated as she died as per docket order dated.29.03.2018.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TUNI.

Copy submitted to the :-

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, East

Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

CC/447/2022 Acquitted

S.I. of police, S.E.B.Tuni P.S. vs Mukkidipalli Nageswararao

14 Jul 2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TUNI.

Present: Smt. M. Swarna latha Volga Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni.

Friday, this the 14 th day of July, 2023

Calender Case No.447 of 2022

Between: The state represented by the Sub inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise station, Tuni …. Complainant.

And:

1.Mukkidipalli Nageswararao, S/o: Brahmaraju, Age 35 yrs, C/SC mala, R/o: Bendapudi village of Thondangi Mandal. …… Accused.

This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing on 03-07-23 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Smt. N.SUNITHA, and of Counsel for accused Sri B.V.V.Ramana and upon hearing the arguments and perused the record and having the matter stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police prohibition and

Excise, Tuni, had filed charge sheet in Cr.No.42/ 2020, for the offences punishable u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 against accused.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows:

On 04.02.2020 at about 7.00 am while Prohbition and Excise sub inspector of police PW.1 along with his staff P.W.2 proceeded and conducted partolling for Proh.&Excise offences at Bendapudi village Thondangi mandal and found the accused in possession of 5 liters of ID liquor. Arrested the accused, seized property which is in violation of A.P.Prohibition Act 1997. On questioning by L.W1 the accused revealed his identity. PW1 lifted one sample containing 300ml of ID liquor and the sample is sent for chemical analysis. Basing on the special report P.W.1 registered a case as F.I.R in Cr.No. 42/2020 for the offence 2

U/s.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act.1997. Hence the charge sheet.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this court taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 7(A) 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of accused the case copies furnished to accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge for the offence u/s. punishable u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997, framed and explained to the a ccused in

Telugu and for which they pleaded not guilt and claims to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, On behalf of the prosecution, LW1 to 3 has been examined as PW1to 3 and Ex. P1 to P3 and MO.1, were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s.

313 Cr.P.C., and for the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu and Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences U/s.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.P. act.1997 , beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined two witness PW1 to 3

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked and sample bottles as M.O1.

11. The learned APP has argued that the evidence of PW1 to 3 coupled with Ex

P1 to P3 and M.O 1, are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.

12.To prove there case Prosecution had examined LW1 as PW1 and deposed that

P.W.1-U.Srinivasarao, E.S.I of police deposed that on 20.03.2020 he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis laboratory, Kakinada which was handed 3 over to him by B.Srinivasarao, P&E.Inspector, Tuni P.S after receiving the chemical analysis report he filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. During the cross examination of PW.1 he admitted that there is a delay of 43 days in sending the sample to chemical analysis laboratory Kakinada and further admitted that the sample bottle returned from chemical examination is not sealed. He denied the suggestion that they did drafted the case for statistical purpose and foisted a false case.

14. The prosecution further examined LW.2 as PW.2 deposed that on 04.02.2020 at about 7.00 A.M., he accompanied with B.Srinivasarao, Inspector of police, S.E.B, Tuni, proceeded to Bendapudi Village, Thondangi mandal as a part of raid in Proh. & Excise offence. There they saw One male person in possession of 5 liters of I.D.Arrack. Then he tried to secure the mediator but in vain. On verification accused revealed his identity as Mukkudupalli Nageswara Rao, S/o

Brahmaraju. B.Srinivasarao, the then Inspector of police seized the contraband and drew 300 ml. Of sample. And identification slips were affixed on the sample bottle which contains the signatures of myself, B.Srinivasarao, Inspector of police and LTI of accused. The special report was drafted by B.Srinivasarao, Inspector of polce. Then B.Srinivasarao, Inspector of police arrested the accused. Then

B.Srinivasarao, Inspector of police took the accused, sample bottle and contraband to the police station.

15.During cross examination of P.W.2 deposed that the then inspector

B.Srinivasarao did not serve any written summons to me to be served on any person to act as mediator. It is true that the scene of offence is a busy area. In

Ex.p1 there is no mention of the efforts made by us to secure the mediators. It is true that no independent witnesses were examined by the B.Srinivasarao,

Inspector of Police and that the sample bottle bottle is a use bottle. He denied the suggestion that the mediators reports was drafted in the police station for statistical purpose and that he did not to the scene of offence and that the police had made table investigating and foisted a false case.

16.The prosecution further examined as p.W.3 deposed that on 16.03.2020 at about 9.00 P.M he received form special report Ex.P3 from P.W.3 and sample bottle remaining contraband and accused from P.W.3. Basing on the Ex.P3 he registered a case in Cr.No.94/2020 for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w.8(E) of A.P.Proh &

Amendment Act.1997 and accused was remanded to Judicial custody.

17.During Cross examination of P.W.3 he did not go to the scene of offence. He did not recorded the statements of P.W.1 to 3 and he registered the case for statistical purpose and he had a foisted a false case.

18.During the cross examination PW1, deposed that there is a delay in 43 days in sending the sample for chemical analysis. PW1 denied the suggestion that they drafted the case for statistical purpose and had foisted a false case.

19. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to 3 and M.O.1, well supports the case of the prosecution and where by the

Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence they prayed the court to convict the accused according to law.

20.On the other hand the learned Counsel for the accused argued that

P.W.1 and 3 are Excise Police officials who are interested in the investigation of this case and their evidence shall not be sole basis to convict the accused. He further argued that the confession made by the accused before the Excise Police officials is hit by Section 25,26 of Indian Evidence Act and it shall not be taken in to consideration and the procedure contemplated under 100(4) is not followed.

Hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

21.On careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 who deposed in his evidence that even though he deputed one of the staff members to secure the independent mediators but none come forward to act as mediators. But the special report does not disclose the names of the persons who were asked to act as mediators.

22. Further, Chemical analysis report under Ex.P3 the samples had been sent to Chemical analysis laboratory. Thus, there is delay of 43 days in reaching the sample to chemical analysis Laboratory, Kakinada. However, the said delay was not explained properly, as has been inter alia observed in S. BABU SAHEB @ BABU Vs STATE OF A.P.[2010(1) ALT (CRL.)32] and 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437(A.P.).

23. According to Section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code before making a search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality. If such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to them so to do. But in this case prosecution did not followed the procedure contemplated U/s 100 (4) Criminal Procedure Code and also failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent 5 mediators. Therefore it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of police officer who is having interest in the prosecution case to convict the accused in the absence of other material evidence on record.

24. Further the confession made by the accused before the Excise Police officials is hit by Section 25,26 of Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the I.D

Arrack it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 to convict the accused.

25. Further more The point to be considered is that in this case complainant and the investigating officer is one and the same. In fact, a complainant cannot be an investigating officer. From the evidence it is found that the I/O has not made any effort to secure independent witnesses though it was a busy locality.

26. Therefore in the light of above decision, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 cannot be sole basis to convict the accused in the absence of other cogent evidence. The seizure was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of other independent testimony believing the evidence of investigating officer to convict the accused may leads to miscarriage of Justice.

27. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such this court is inclined to acquit the accused. Accordingly the point is answered .

28. In the result the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 and the accused was acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The accused set at liberty forth with. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after lapse six months. M.O.1, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly to the steno corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 14th day of July, 2023

SD/Swarnalatha Volga Marka

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, TUNI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE.

P.W.1 U.Srinivasarao None.

P.W.2 G.Surya Prakash rao

P.W.3: B.Srinivasarao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1: F.I.R Nil. Ex.P-2: special report Ex.P.3: Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle of I.D. Arrack.

Sd/Swarnalatha Volga Marka A.J.M.F.C.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District: East Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni

Date of

OffenceReport orApprehensioRelease onCommencemClosure of TrialSentence or complaintn of accusedbailent of trialOrder 04-2-202004-02-202031-05-202031.05.202013-01-202303-07-2314 .07.2023

Explanation of delay and Remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is required to attend this court beyond three times.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.447/2022 on the file of Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate.

Complainant: - State represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, TUNI TOWN

Husband’s Name/father’s nameAge

Name of the accused 1.Mukkidipalli NageswararaoBrahmaraju35Yrs

ReligionCallingResidenceMandal

Hindu---Bendapudi villageThondangi

Offence: Under Section 7(A)r/w 8(E) of A.P.P. Act

Finding : - Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997.

Sentence : - In the result the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, TUNI

Copy submitted to the :-

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District,

Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.