Sri. Syed Qayam Hussain

1 CC No.362/11

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

TRIAL OF PROH & EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD

PRESENT:- SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.Sc., LL.B., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

Dated this the 27th day of September, 2012

CC.No.362 of 2011

Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Makloor.

..Complainant

And.

Sunkari Prabhakar S/o Chinna Gangaram, 30 years, Caste:SC(Mala), Occ:Driver of Star Motor Cycle No.AP-25-N-1979 R/o Keshapur village of Nizamabad Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri A.Ravinder, Advocate for the accused, and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- ::JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Makloor has filed charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence punishable under sections 338 of IPC in

Cr.No.78/2010.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 27-4-2010 while Lw2/Keloth Ravinder along with Lw3/ Mangali

Mahesh was proceeding to his village Venukishan nagar from Nizamabad on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-P-9349 and when they reached near Duck farm, the accused, the driver of TVS Star Motorcycle No.AP-25-N-1979 came in opposite direction from Nandipet in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle No.AP-25-P-9349, due to which Lws.2 & 3/Keloth Ravinder and Mangali Mahesh fell down and sustained injuries to their hands and right legs and waist region.

3.As per the contents of the above complaint, Lw7/ Asst. Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.78/2010 U/sec.337 IPC and took up the 2 CC No.362/11 investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw7 examined Lw1/the complainant and recorded his statement, visited the Government Hospital,

Nizamabad and examined the injured Lws.2 & 3,rushed to the scene of offence secured the presence of two mediators Lws.4 & 5/Deena & Keloth Harilal and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Thereafter,

Lw6/Medical Officer, who treated the injured, given medical certificates opining the injured sustained grievous injuries. That on 20-9-2010 the accused surrendered himself before Lw9/N.Bose Kiran, SI of Police, and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As such, Lw9 effected his arrest and informed the grounds of his arrest to his relatives and issued notice u/s.50

Cr.P.C. That after completion of investigation and after collecting all the documents filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec.338 of IPC.

4. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/sec 338 of IPC .

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution, were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/sec 338 IPC. He denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. This case is transferred to this Court from the Court of II Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad and renumbered as CC 362/2011 and the

case is proceeded with.

8.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P6, and closed the prosecution evidence.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and stated that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

3 CC No.362/11

10.Heard both sides.

11. Now the point for determination is: - Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

12.The accused stood charged for the offence punishable u/s.338 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to Pw2 and Lw2/ Keloth Ravinder due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-N-1979.

13.In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Pw1 is complainant, Pw2 is the injured,

Pw3 & Pw4 are the panch for scene, Pw5 is doctor, who treated the injured, and

Pws.6 to 8 are the Investigating Officers.

14.To prove the offence u/s.338 IPC. the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and his driving was rash or negligent, due to which the accident occurred and Pw2 &

Lw2/Keloth Ravinder sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.

15.Pw1 who is the complainant,depposed that while his son Lw2 and Pw2 were returning on the motorcycle from Nizamabad to their village, near Duck farm, one motorcycle coming from Nandipet side dashed to motorcycle of his son, due to which, Lw2 sustained injury to his right leg and left hand, and

Lw3(Pw2) also sustained injuries and on coming to know about the accident he went to the hospital and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

16.Pw2, the injured, deposed that about two years back he came to

Nizamabad on the motorcycle of his relative and while he was returning to his village, Lw2 met him and joined him at Petrol Bunk near Vijay Public School, and when they reached near duck farm, at about 7.00 p.m. , one motorcycle coming from Nandipet side at high speed, dashed to their motorcycle, due to which, he sustained injury on his right hand, thigh, right leg finger, left leg knee, and Lw2 sustained injury at right leg, left hand and on chest. He further 4 CC No.362/11 deposed that they were shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad in 108

Ambulance. He identified the accused in the court as the driver of the crime vehicle. In the cross-examination, it is elicited through him that himself, Lw2 and the accused were taken in the same ambulance to the hospital, and one more person who was travelling with the accused sustained injuries, and that he(Pw2) became unconscious while he was being shifted to the hospital. It is further elicited through him that he has seen the accused on the day of the accident and thereafter in the Court today. It is further elicited through him that no identification parade was conducted, that it was dark night, a cycle heavily loaded with maize was going in front of his vehicle, that he was not having driving license at the time of accident and his vehicle was not having insurance.

17.Pws.3 & 4 who are the panch for scene, deposed about the police conducting scene of offence panchanama and drawing rough sketch and obtaining their signatures. As per Pw3, there were no motorcycles on the spot at the time of panchanama, and as per Pw4, there were two motorcycles on the spot. It is elicited through Pw3 that he has not visited the scene of offence on the next day of accident and, through Pw4 that he do not know the contents of the panchanama and the police obtained his signature on white papers.

18.Pw5 is the doctor, who treated Lw2(Ravinder) and Pw2 and issued Exs.P4 and P5 medical certificates. As per Pw5, Pw2 sustained injuries on his right knee, lacerated wound over the right foot, abrasion over left shoulder and right hand. It is elicited through him the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are possible if a person falls from sufficient height on hard surface.

19.Pw6 to Pw8 are the Investigating Officers, whose evidence in chief is procedural in nature. It is elicited through Pw7 that as per his investigation, except Pw2 and Lw2, there are no other injured. As per Pw7, he came to know that the accused was admitted in the hospital, but he was not available in the hospital when he visited the hospital. It is elicited through Pw8 that he has not 5 CC No.362/11 conducted Test Identification Parade after the arrest of the accused and the name of the accused is not mentioned in FIR & Section 161 CrPC. statements of

Pws.1,2 & Lw2.

20.The evidence of Pws.1,2,5 to 8 coupled with Exs.P4 &P5, no doubt discloses that Pw2 and Lw2 sustained injuries in the road accident. However, the question is, whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and, if so, the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

21.As seen from the above evidence, Pw1, the complainant, is not the eye witness to the accident and hence his evidence which is hearsay in nature, is not admissible in law. Pws.3 & 4 are the panch for scene and their evidence is not useful to connect the accused with the crime. Pw5 is the doctor who deposed about Pw2 &Lw2 sustaining injuries. Pw6 is the investigating officer, who filed charge sheet and Pw7 is the investigating officer, who issued F.I.R, recorded the statements of Pws.1,2, and Lw2 at the Government Hospital,

Nizamabad, conducted scene of offence panchanama. As per Pw8, the accused surrendered before him on 20-9-2010 and made confession. However, no confessional statement was recorded before any independent witness. No

Identification Parade was conducted after the arrest of the accused. Now we have to see the evidence of Pw2, injured, who identified the accused before the

Court as the driver of the crime vehicle. As per him, the accused and one more person, who was traveling along with accused sustained injuries and they were also shifted to the hospital in the same ambulance. As per Pw7, investigating officer, he came to know that the accused was also admitted in the hospital but he was not available in the hospital at the time of his visit. However, no such record is produced before the Court to show that the accused was admitted in the hospital. As per Pw2, he has seen the accused on the day of accident i.e. on 27.4.2010 and thereafter identified in the court i.e. on the day of evidence i.e.

6 CC No.362/11 on 13.4.2012, i.e. after a gap of about 2 years, and no identification parade was conducted. Further, it has come in the evidence that Pw2 became unconscious, while he was being shifted to the hospital. However, the statement of Pw1

before the police is silent to the effect that he can identify the driver if he see

him and also about the identity or descriptive particulars of the accused. Thus, the identification of the accused before the Court after a lapse of two years can not be accepted as reliable identification.

22.Even if it is believed without admitting that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, there is nothing before the Court to prove that the accused was rash or negligent in driving the crime vehicle.

Admittedly, it was a dark night and Pw1 was not having driving license at the time of accident and a cycle having loaded with maize was going in front of his vehicle. It appears that due to unable to control the motorcycle, due to dark night, Pw2 & Lw2 therefore fell down and sustained injuries. Pw5-doctor also not ruled out the possibility of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 by fall on hard surface.

23.In view of the above discrepancies, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and I find the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/sec 338 of IPC and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

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

in the open Court on this the 27th day of September,2012.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

Cont.7th 7 CC No.362/11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1/Lw.1-Keloth Pool Singh --Nil-- PW.2/Lw.3-Mangali Mahesh PW.3/Lw.5-Keloth Harilal PW.4/Lw.4-Deena Pw.5/Lw.6-Dr.Shambhu Pw.6/Lw.8-M.Lingam, Investigating Officer Pw.7/Lw.7-M.Padmaiah, Investigating Officer Pw.8/Lw.9-N.Bose Kiran, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Complaint dt. 27-4-2010 --Nil-- Ex.P2: scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Medical Certificate of Ravinde(Lw2) Ex.P5: Medical Certificate of Pw2 Ex.P6: FIR dt. 27-4-2010

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad 8 CC No.362/11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF P & E OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD

CC.NO.362 of 2011

1. Date of offence : 27-4-2010

2. Date of complaint or report: 27-4-2010

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 20-9-2010

4. Date of release on bail : 20-9-2010

5. Date of commencement of trial: 13-4-2012

6. Date of closure of trial: 21-9-2012

7. Date of Judgment : 27-9-2012

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant: The State through P.S. Makloor.

Description of the accused: Sunkari Prabhakar S/o Chinna Gangaram, 30 years, Caste:SC(Mala), Occ:Driver of Star Motor Cycle No.AP-25-N-1979 R/o Keshapur village of Nizamabad Mandal.

Offence Under Section : 338 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted

Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:-Sri SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.Sc.,LLB., Spl JFCM for trial of P&E Offences Nizamabad Dated:- 30th Day of April,2013.

CC. No 194 of 2012

Between:-

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police, Nizamabad

...Complainant

And

Lavudya Gangya s/o Chandru, Age 53 years, Occ: Driver R/o Machareddy Cross Road, Dist Nizamabad. Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri B.Saya Reddy, Advocate for the accused having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1 The Sub-Inspector of Police Dichpally has filed charge sheet against the accused hearing in FIR No 210/2011, for the offence punishable U/section 338 IPC.

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

That on 20-5-2011 at about 4-40pm, the accused drove Bus bearing No AP 25Z 3432 in rash and negligent manner near Krishi

Darshan in the limits of Bardipur village and dashed to one Wagoner

Car No AP 13 R 1440 on backside and in turn the said car dashed to the motor cycle of Thota Santhosh due to which he sustained grievous injuries . Hence, the complaint.

On receipt of complaint, Lw9/Chitti Babu registered a case in Crime No 210/2011 , U/section 338 IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Lw1/C.Srinivas and there after visited the place of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

Lw6/K.Rajaiah and Lw7/M.Sampath and drawn rough sketch

Lw8/Dr.Srinivas Rao who treated Lw5/P.Santhosh issued Medical certificate opining that the injured sustained grievous injuries. On 25- 5-2011 at about 11am the accused surrendered before Lw10/V.Swami 2 and confessed to have committed the offence and he arrested the accused and released on bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation Lw10 filed charge sheet against the accused U/section 338 IPC.

3. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 338IPC by the IInd Addl JMFC Nizamabad and numbered as CC No 747/2011 and transferred to this court and renumbered as CC No 194/2012.

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

5 The accused was examined U/sec 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC. The contents of the examination read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs P1 to

P5 After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Pws1 to 8, he denied the same and reported that he has not defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 338 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

9. The accused stood charged for the offence punishable U/section 304-A IPC for causing grievous injuries to Pw2 due to rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle ie., RTC Bus bearing AP11 Z 3432.

10. In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 8 and got exhibited Ex P1 to Ex.P5. Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is injured, Pw3 is eye witness, Pw4 and 5 are witnesses, Pw6 is panch for scene , Pw7 and 8 are investigating

Officer.

11. To prove the offence U/sec 338 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients: -

1. Grievous injuries to the person in question in the accident;

2. That the accused caused such accident due to which the injured sustained grievous injuries;

3. That such act of the accused was rash or negligent.

3

12.The evidence of Pw1 to 8 coupled with Ex. P1,P4 and P5, no doubt disclose that Pw2 sustained grievous injuries in the road accident. Now the question is whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and, if so, his driving rash or negligent due to which the accident occurred and Pw2 sustained grievous injuries .

13.The evidence of Pw1 is to the effect that on 20-5-2011 in the evening hours Lw5(Pw2) was going to Nizamabad on his motor cycle and when he reached near Bardipur shiver one RTC bus coming from opposite direction dashed to a car in front of the bus from backside and in turn the car dashed to the motor cycle of Pw2 due to which he fell down and sustained fractured injuries to his leg and hand. He further deposed that on receipt of phone call about the accident he went to the spot but the injured was already shifted to Amrutha Laxmi hospital,

Nizamabad and he immediately went to the hospital and found Pw2 under going treatment and lodged Ex. P1 complaint to the police. In his cross examination he admitted that the accident occurred due to the fault of the car driver

14. Pw2 who is injured deposed about the accident proper. As per him he fracture injuries to right leg and right hand and he became unconscious immediately after the accident and gained consciousness and after 2 months at Yashoda hospital. Ex.D1 contradiction as regards he stating to police that he sustained fracture injuries to left leg and arm he elicited through him.

15. Pw3 who is cited as sole eye witness deposed about the accident proper and further deposed that he has seen the driver of the bus at the time of accident but, he cannot identity the driver due to lapse of time and he failed to identify the accused in the court as the driver of the crime vehicle. In his cross examination it is elicited that he his not stated to police that he has seen the driver of the bus at the time of accident. He admitted that there is car at the place of accident.

16 Pw4 and 5 who are citied as witnesses deposed that on 20-5-2011 at about 4-30pm when they were going to University in a car bearing no AP13R 1440 and crossed Eenadu office one RTC bus came from backside and dashed to their car due to which the car moved towards right side and one motor cycle coming from opposite direction dashed to their car due to which the car damaged from front side and back side and the motor cyclist fell down and sustained injuries . They further 4 deposed that the bus no was AP11Z 3432 and the accident occurred due the fault of the driver but they have not sent the driver of the bus at the time of accident. Ex. D2 and D3 contradiction are elicited through Pw5.

17. Pw6 who is panch for scene deposed about the police conducting the scene of offence panchanama and drawing rough sketch and obtaining his signature. As per him he noticed an accident took place between car and motor cycle and the left side indicator of the car and the motor cycle got damaged In his cross examination it is elicited through him that he do not know the contents of panchanama.

18. Pw7 and 8 are the investigating Officers whose evidence in chief is procedural in nature. In the cross examination of Pw7 it is elicited through him that he has not examined the passengers and conductor of the bus, he has collected the SR or log sheet of the bus, the place of accident is a busy area and Ex. P3 rough sketch does not disclosed any

RTC bus and speed marks on the road. It is elicited through Pw8 in his cross examination that he has not examined the depot manager not collected RC or Log sheet of the crime vehicle.

19.A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence disclosed that admittedly no eye witness identified the accused in the court as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The evidence of

Pw3 is the sole eye witness of the accident do doubt depose about the accident proper, he failed to identify the accused in the court as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. As per him there is car at the place of accident and the car damaged both in the front side and the back side. As per Pw2 who is injured he became unconscious immediately after the accident and gained consciousness after 2 months at Yashoda hospital, Hyderabad. Thus the evidence of Pw2 the injured is also not helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. Further his evidence is inconsistent so for as injuries are concerned. He deposed before the court that he sustained injuries on his right leg and right hand, where as his Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement disclosed that he sustained fracture injuries to his left leg and arm. As per Pws4 and 5 the crime vehicle dashed to their car from backside due to which their car turned towards right side and the motor cycle dashed to their car due to which their car damaged in front side and backside.

As per Pw6 who is panch left side indicator of the car damaged. Thus, the evidence of Pw4 and 5 corroborates with the evidence of Pw6 as 5 regards their vehicle turning to the right side and the motor cycle dashed the car to the left side of the indicator. Further investigating

Officers have not investigated the case as required by them. They have not examined the conductor and any official of the RTC of the bus and collected SR or log sheet of the bus to ascertain whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and the accident occurred due to rashness or negligence on his part in driving the crime vehicle.

20. I therefore hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable ground and consequently I find the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

21. In the result, the accused is acquitted U/sec 255(1) Cr.PC. and for the offence punishable U/sec 338 IPC and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th Day of April, 2013.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Ch.Srinivas(Lw-1) None

Pw2 Thota Santhosh(Lw5)

Pw3 V.Balraj(Lw4)

Pw4 Mohd.Musa(w2)

Pw5 Dr.Akthar Sulthana(Lw3)

Pw6 M.Sampath(Lw7)

Pw7 G.Chitti Babu.IO(Lw9)

Pw8 V.Swami. IO(Lw10)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Complaint by Pw1 Nil

Ex.P2 Scene of panchanama by Pw6

Ex.P3 Rough sketch

Ex.P4 FIR.

Ex P5 Medical Certificate of T.Santhosh(Pw2)by Pw8

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

TRIAL

OF P & E OFFENCES NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 194 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 20-05-2011

2. Date of complaint or report: 20-05-2011

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 25-05-2011

4. Date of release on bail : 25-05-2011

5. Date of commencement of trial : 27-02-2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 17-04-2013

7. Date of Judgment : 30-04-2013

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Dichpally.

Description of the accused:

Lavudya Gangya s/o Chandru, Age 53 years, Occ: Driver R/o Machareddy Cross Road, Dist Nizamabad.

Offence Under Section: 338 IPC.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquitted

Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1 CC.40-12

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

TRIAL OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD

PRESENT:- Sri SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.Sc., LL.B., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

Dated this the 21st day of September, 2012

CC.No. 40 of 2012

Between:- The State through Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Armoor

...Complainant

And

Gugloth Srinu S/o Rothya, 26years, Occ:Labour R/o.Sampally Thanda of Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri Teddu Narsaiah, Advocate for the accused having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- ::JUDGMENT::

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Armoor has filed charge sheet against the accused herein in COR No.802/2011-12 for the offence punishable U/sec 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

That on receipt of reliable information about illegal sale of ID liquor, Lw.3/B.Madhava

Reddy, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Armoor, along with staff by securing Lws.1 & 2/

G.Vasanth and G.Gabru, proceeded to the outskirts of Sampally Thanda of Dichpally Mandal,

Nizamabad District on 3.1.2012 at about 4.00 p.m. and found a person conducting sale of ID liquor pockets under open shed and on enquiry, he revealed his name as Gugloth Srinu, i.e. the accused herein. That during verification, they found a plastic bag containing (150) polythene pockets of 100 ml.each. On further enquiry, the accused disclosed that he purchased the said liquor pockets from an unknown person and selling the same to the customers @ Rs.5/- per pocket. That on demand, the accused failed to produce any valid license or permit for such possession and sale of contraband. That as the possession and transportation of ID liquor without any valid license or permit is an offence, the Excise Officials seized the same, drawn two 2 CC.40-12 samples of ID liquor pockets of 180 ml.each, sealed and packed them in the prescribed manner in presence of mediators Lws.1 & 2 and pasted the panch chits signed by panchas on the sample, and took them into their custody under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused. After duly explaining the contents of panchanama, obtained the signatures of LW1-G.Vasanth and

LW2/G.Gabru, and also the accused on panchanama duly drafted by Lw.3/Prohibition & Excise

Sub Inspector.

After returning back to Excise Station House, Armoor, Lw.3/Prohibition & Excise Sub

Inspector, registered a case and issued COR No.802/2011-12 U/sec 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 and he produced the case papers along with the accused before the Court for judicial remand and he also sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report, who opined that the sample sent to him is “ alcohol and it is liquor containing sediment, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. The remaining property was deposited

before the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Nizamabad for confiscation. After

receipt of Chemical Examination report, Lw3 has filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

5.The accused was examined U/sec 239 Cr.P.C. and on hearing a charge under section 240 of Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence punishable U/sec 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995.

The contents of the examination read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer as PW.1, and got exhibited Exs.P1 to

P3 and Mo.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec 313

Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Pw.1, he denied the same and reported that he has not having any defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

3 CC.40-12

8.Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the punishable U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 for illegal sale of ID liquor pockets in the outskirts of Sampally

Thanda of Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, without having any valid license or permit.

10.In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution has examined the

Investigating Officer as Pw1, and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3 and Mo.1. The evidence of Lw1 closed on the report filed by police that his whereabouts are not known. So also, the evidence of

Lw2 closed on the report filed by the police that he went abroad for his livelihood.

11. Pw.1 is the investigating officer who detected the case, conducted panchanama, seized the contraband, affected the arrest of the accused, registered a case and issued COR and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.The evidence of Pw.1 is procedural in nature. He deposed about receiving of reliable information, seizing of property from the possession of the accused, drawing of samples in the presence of panchas, recording of statements of panchas, issuing of COR, arresting of accused, and filing of charge sheet.

13.From the above evidence it is seen that LW1 and Lw2, who are alleged to have acted as panch witnesses for seizure of property, not examined by the prosecution to substantiate the investigation done by Pw1. Further, Pw1, who is the investigating officer, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. in searching and seizing the property and he has not prepared seizure list and served on the accused and also failed to collect the unexpended portion of sample bottles from the Government Chemical Examiner and the same was not deposited in the Court after chemical analysis.

4 CC.40-12

14.In view of non-examination of mediators, and in view of the infirmities discussed supra, it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Pw.1 to base conviction of the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, I find the accused is not guilty of the offence with which stood charged on accused.

15.In the result, the accused is acquitted U/sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Mo.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of September, 2012.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE: PW.1(LW3)B.Madhava Reddy. --Nil-- P & E SI, Armoor.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Panchanama --NIL-- Ex.P2: C.O.R. Ex.P3: Chemical Examination Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: sample bottle

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad 5 CC.40-12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF P & E OFFENCES NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 40 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 3-1-2012

2. Date of complaint or report: 3-1-2012

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 4-1-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 5-1-2012

5. Date of commencement of trial: 26-7-2012

6. Date of closure of trial: 13-9-2012

7. Date of Judgment : 21-9-2012

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant :

The State through Sub Inspector of Prohibition & Excise Station, Armoor.

Description of the accused: Gugloth Srinu S/o Rothya, 26years, Occ:Labour R/o.Sampally Thanda of Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

Offence Under Section: 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: Acquitted

Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD

PRESENT:- Sri SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.Sc., LL.B., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

Dated this the 15th day of April, 2013.

CC.No. 429 of 2012

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise Station, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

And

Yelgarti Ramesh s/o Vishwanath, 35 years, Padmashali, Business r/o H.No.4-36, Devapally Camp, Dichpally. (M).

...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri G. Vinayak advocate for the accused having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- ::JUDGMENT::

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Nizamabad has filed charge sheet against the accused herein in COR.No.70/2012-13 for the offence punishable

U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995.

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

That on 25-04-2012 at about 6.30 p.m. the accused was found in illegal transportation of (19.5) liters of I.D. liquor on a TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing no.AAR 9473, near Charbhai Petrol pump, Bodhan road, Nizamabad, Lw-1/M.

Narsimloo, seized the above said contraband, drawn samples under a cover of panchanama in the presence of Lws-1 and 2, and registered a case against the accused and Lw-6/N. Rangaswamy filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act, 1995.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995.

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

5.The accused was examined U/sec 239 Cr.P.C. and on hearing a charge under

Section 240 of Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence punishable U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of 2 of A.P.P. Act, 1995. The contents of the examination and charge read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3, and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P-3 and

M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Pws-1 to 3, he denied the same and reported that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

9. The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995 for illegal possession of contraband i.e. I.D. Liquor without having any valid license or permit.

10. In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3, and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P-3 and got marked M.O.1.

11. Pw-1-M. Narsimlu deposed that on 25-4-2012 he along with his staff proceeded to Bodhan road and conducted route watch and vehicle checking and found the accused coming on TVS Suzuki motor cycle from Bodhan bus stand and they stopped the accused and on search found one hand bag containing 30 packets of ID liquor in total 19.5 liters liquor and on enquiry the accused revealed his name and stated that he purchased the same and selling at Nizamabad at higher rate and on demand he failed to produce any valid license or permit and seized the said contraband, motor cycle and drawn two samples in the presence of two panchas Lws-1 and 2, and drafted panchanama and taken the sample and the accused into custody and brought the accused to excise station Nizamabad and handed over to Lw-4 K. Peer Singh for further investigation. In his cross- examination he admitted that the place of offence is a busy locality and there are shops and hotels and he has not secured local panchas.

3

12. Pw-2 N. Ranga Swamy deposed that on receipt of CD file from Lw-4 K. Peer

Singh, he verified the investigation done by him and Pw-1 and after completion of investigation and after receipt of CE report he filed charge sheet against the accused. M.O.1 is sample bottle.

13. Pw-3 K. Peer Singh deposed that on 25-4-2012 at about 7.30 p.m. he received case papers along with sample bottles and seized property and the accused from Pw-1 and he registered a case and sent the accused to the court for judicial remand and deposited the sample bottles before the court and deposited the remaining property before the Dy. Commissioner for further action and handed over the case file to Pw-2 for further investigation.

14. From the above evidence it is seen Lws-1 and 2, who are panchas and independent witnesses are not examined before the court. Pw-1 who is the main investigating officer, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of

Criminal Procedure Code in searching and seizing the property, in that, he has not prepared seizure list and served on the accused. He has not secured local panchas as contemplated under section 100 (4). Pw-1 also failed to collect the unexpended portion of sample from the Govt. Chemical Examiner and the same was not deposited in the court after chemical analysis, to compare the same with

M.O.1 to ascertain that the same sample was sent for chemical analysis.

15. In view of non-examination of the panchas and in view of the infirmities discussed supra, it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Pw.1 to 3, who are investigating officers and naturally interested in the fruits of their investigation, to base conviction of the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, I find the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

16.In the result, the accused is acquitted U/sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995 and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

4

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2013.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

PW.1 M.Narsimloo. I.O. (Lw-3) None PW.2 N. Ranga Swamy I.O. (Lw-6) PW.3 K. Peer Singh. (Lw-4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 Panchanama. Nil Ex.P2 C.E. Report. Ex.P3 C.O.R.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: sample bottle Nil

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF P & E OFFENCES NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 429 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 25-04-2012

2. Date of complaint or report: 25-04-2012

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 25-04-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 27-04-2012

5. Date of commencement of trial : 31-01-2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 04-04-2013

7. Date of Judgment : 15-04-2013

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant:

The State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, SHO Nizamabad.

Description of the accused:

Yelgarti Ramesh s/o Vishwanath, 35 years, Padmashali, Business r/o H.No.4-36, Devapally Camp, Dichpally. (M).

Offence Under Section: 7(A) r/w 8(e) of of A.P.P. Act, 1995

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquitted

Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR TRIAL OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD

PRESENT:- Sri SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.Sc., LL.B., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2013.

CC.No. 445 of 2011

Between:-

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, V Town police, Nizamabad

...Complainant

And

A1 Zareef Khan s/o Mansoor Khan, Age 27 years, Occ:Vegetable business R/o Shanthinagar, Nizamabad A2 Smt Noorjaha Begam w/o Md. Mansoor Khan,Age 50 years, Occ:House-wife R/o Shantinagar, Nizamabad A3 Smt Shaheen Begam w/o Ansar Khan, Age 32 years,Occu: House-wife,R/.o Bhokar,Mudhol, galli, Nanded. A4 Feroz Khan w/o Mansoor Khan, Age 19 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/oH.No9-17-664,Shanthinagar,Nizamabad A5 Akbar Khan s/o Mansoor Khan, Age 19 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o Shanthinagar, Nizamabad.

Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri Mohd Kasim, Advocate for the accused having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- ::JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, V Town, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet against the accused herein in FIR. No. 110/2006 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A IPC Sec 4 of D.P Act..

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. That about 6 years back Lw-1/Smt.Shabana Sultana’s marriage was performed with accused in the presence of caste elders and her parents presented Rs 22,000 cash, 2 tulas gold, silver chain and other household articles to accused and they led marital life for 1 year and blessed with two children. There after, the accused started harassing her mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of 2

Rs. 25,000/- and necked out Lw1 from their house. Hence, the complaint.

3 On receipt of complaint Lw-6/G. Anand Rao registered a case and took up investigation and during the course of investigation he examined Lw-1 to 5 and recorded their statements On 24-8-2006, Lw7

D.Balaji arrested A1 to A4 and on 6-9-2006 he arrested A5 and on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence and brought them to the police station and produced them before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and Sec3 and 4 of D.P Act.

4.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC Sec 4 of D.P Act. by the IInd Addl.

JMFC Nizamabad and numbered as C.C 1234/2006 and subsequently the case is transferred to this court and renumbered as C.C. 445/2011.

5.On appearance of accused, the copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused were examined U/sec 239 Cr.P.C. and on hearing charge under section 240 of Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 498-A IPC. Sec 4 of D.P Act and the contents of the examination and charge read over and explained to them for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1.and P2

As there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of Pws-1 the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A IPC Sec 4 of D.P Act., beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

Point:-

10. Accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC Sec 4 of D.P Act.. for demanding and taking dowry at the time of marriage, harassing and ill-treating Lw-1 demanding additional dowry.

11 In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined Pws-1 and in view of the hostile evidence of Pws-1, the evidence of Lws-2 to 7 is given up by the learned APP.

12. Pw1 deposed that accused is her husband and Lw-2 and Lw3 are my parents and her marriage took place with the accused about 6 years and out of love and affection and as per customs her parents gave Rs 22,000/-, 2 tulas gold, silver chain and other house hold articles and they led happy married life and there after some petty quarrels took place between her and the accused and she informed to the V Town police, the V Town police obtained her signature on white paper and she has not lodged any written complaint against the accused and the accused never harassed her demanding any

additional dowry and the police never examined and recorded her

statement. The learned AP declared her hostile with permission of the court and cross-examined her but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve her testimony.

13. In view of the evidence of Pws-1 the learned APP given up the evidence of other witnesses i.e Lws-2 to 7. As there was no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of

Pws-1, this court dispensed with the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, from the above evidence, it is seen that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and I find the accused not guilty of the offence, with which he stood charged. It appears the matter has been settled outside the court.

4

14.In the result, the accused (A1 to A5) is acquitted U/sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC Sec 4 of

D.P Act.. IPC and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2013.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Shabana Begam (Lw-1) None

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on complaint . Nil Ex.P2: Sec 161 Cr.P. C. statement of Pw-1. .

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., for trial of P&E Offences, Nizamabad

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

TRIAL OF P & E OFFENCES NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 445 of 2011

1. Date of offence : 13-08-2006

2. Date of complaint or report: 13-08-2006

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 24-08-2006

4. Date of release on bail : 24-08-2006

5. Date of commencement of trial : 26-04-2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 26-04-2013

7. Date of Judgment : 26-04-2013

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant:

The State through SHO, P.S. V Town Nizamabad.

Description of the accused:

A1 Zareef Khan s/o Mansoor Khan, Age 27 years, Occ:Vegetable business R/o Shanthinagar, Nizamabad and others.

Offence Under Section:498-A, IPC.4 of D.P.Act.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquitted

Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.