Smt.T.Durga Rani Kalidindi

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 1 of 7

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

AT RAMANNAPET

Present: - Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi., Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

(Dated this the 10 th day of February, 2022)

C.C.No. 634 of 2015

Between:-

The State, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Valigonda. ...Prosecution

AND

Perka Srinivas, S/o. Narsimhulu, Age: 46 years, Occ: Private Employee, Caste: Munnurukapu, Present R/o. H.No.46/7, Indiramma Colony, Borampet, Kuthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy, District, N/o. Janvada Village of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State by Sri. P.Venkata Avinash, and Sri.N.Mogulaiah & Sri.N.Swamy, Advocates on behalf of the Accused upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Valigonda Police Station filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.156/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Prosecution of the case The Contents of Charge Sheet in brief is as follows:

a)The facts of the case are that the complainant’s marriage was performed with you (accused) in the year 2001, April 24th and at the time of marriage her parents given 2 lakhs net cash, 5 tulas gold and some house hold articles given to them as a dowry. After one year of their marriage she blessed male child.

After that you (accused) started suspecting her fidelity and harassing her mentally and physically and also harassing her to bring additional dowry from her parents otherwise he will kill her and child, the same issue was she represented to his elder sister, but she did not responded well, after some day

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 2 of 7

you (accused) beat her and thrown out her from house, she bore all the harassments in the interest of her son future, but in the year 2010 he again beat her on head and further her parents took her to mother’s house at Uppal and staying there lonely, further her husband/accused absconded and enquired about her husband/accused with his sister but in vain. Recently she came to know that her husband/accused again married another lady and staying at

Indiramma Colony, Kuthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District and went there and questioned about his second marriage on that he beat her and her son and also threatened them not to come and otherwise he will kill them. On receipt of the above report LW7/G.Raja Shekar, S.I of Police, Ramannapet registered a case in Cr.No.156/2015 for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the Course of investigation

LW7/G.Raja Shekar, S.I of Police, Ramannapet have examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Perka Saritha which incorporated in Part-II Case Diary. Later examined the witnesses LW2/Nagu Pandari, LW3/Nagu Bayamma,

LW4/Nagu Santhosh, LW5/Nagu Anjaiah, LW6/Gardasu Ravinder and recorded their statements which incorporated in Part-II Case Diary. On 08-10-2015 the

Accused was surrendered before the LW7/G.Raja Shekar, S.I of Police, Ramannapet and on interrogation the accused/Perka Srinivas voluntarily admitted his guilt this offence, on that LW7/G.Raja Shekar, S.I of Police, Ramannapet affected the arrest of the accused/Perka Srinivas and sent him to

Judicial Custody.

Cognizance

2.Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act has been taken against Sole Accused.

3.On appearance of the Sole Accused before this court copies of the case record were furnished to Sole Accused U/Sec. 498 of IPC & Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

4.Sole Accused was examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A of IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for which accused

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 3 of 7

denied the charge sheet allegations and the substance of allegations levelled against Sole Accused has been explained to him in his vernacular language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

5.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW5, were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked, LW1/Perka Saritha examined as PW1. LW3/Nagu Bayamma examined as PW2. LW4/Nagu Santhosh examined as PW3. LW5/Nagu Anjaiah examined as PW4. LW5/G.Raja Shekar examined as PW5. LW2/Nagu Pandari evidence is closed and LW6/Gardasu Ravinder evidence is given up by the prosecution. Exhibits marked by Prosecution are Ex.P.1 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P.2 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P.3 is Sec.

161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P.4 is First Information Report marked by PW5.

Examination of Accused after Trial

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Sole Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating evidence found against him, for which Sole Accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Sole Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence the Defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the learned APP and the Learned Counsel for Sole Accused.

Arguments

8. Learned Counsel for Accused submitted that out of 7 list of witnesses, PW1 to 5 has been examined. PW1 is the Complainant/Victim, PW2 is the mother of PW1, PW3 is the brother of PW1, PW4 is the circumstantial witness, PW5 is the

Investigating Officer. Counsel for accused stated that PW1 denied the complaint signature as well as contents. PW2 turned hostile. PW3 & PW4 are the interested witness. PW5 whose evidence is formal in nature and counsel for accused submitted that there is no substantive piece of evidence. Hence, Accused may be acquitted in the interests of justice.

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 4 of 7

9. Learned APP submitted his arguments stated that PW1 to 5 though the prosecution case for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act of sole accused. Though PW2 turned hostile. PW3 & 4 stated that there are disputes between PW1 and Accused. PW3 stated that Accused denied paternity of the male child. Hence, it shows there is cruelty by Accused towards PW1. Hence, Accused may be convicted in the interest of justice. PW1 stated that she has given dowry at the time of marriage, which proves that Sec. 3 of D.P Act offence. Hence, Accused may be convicted in the interest of justice.

Now, the point for determination is :

a) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of Sole Accused beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC?

b) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of Sole Accused beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

c) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of Sole Accused beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act?

Sec. 498-A of IPC: Husband or Relative of Husband of a woman

subjecting her to Cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative

of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation — “Cruelty” means—

(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand the explanation given in Sec. 498-A IPC to the meaning cruelty shows the physical and mental harassment to meet any unlawful demand either for dowry or additional dowry or any valuable security.

To prove the cruelty of Sole Accused for offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC essential ingredients are as specified above.

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 5 of 7

10.PW1 complainant alleges that she has been mentally and physically harassed by Sole Accused for additional dowry. a.Essential elements need to prove mentally and physically harassment.

b.Demand of additional dowry as alleged by PW1.

11. PW1 in chief examination denied the contents and signature of complaint i.e., Ex.P.1 in her chief examination. PW1 stated that she has paid Rs.30,000/- as dowry, 3 thulas of gold, house hold articles to her Husband at the time of marriage. PW1 in her chief stated that her husband denied the paternity of her child.

12. PW2 turned hostile. PW3 is brother of PW1, he stated that the paternity of the child of PW1 is denied by Accused and also Accused deserted PW1. PW3 denied the suggestion that complainant/PW1 left voluntarily from Accused as Accused is suffering from ill health.

13. PW4 is circumstantial witness and cousin brother of PW1 stated that he went to settle the marital disputes between PW1 and Accused and he did not know about the case.

14. PW5 Investigating Officer the formal witness. With all the evidence on the record the mental and physical harassment. From the evidence of PW1 to 5 is that PW1 and 3 stated that the paternity of child has been denied by the

Accused himself, which amounts to mental harassment. None of the prosecution witness whispered, whether requested the demand of additional dowry has been made or not by Accused to PW1. Moreover, PW3 being the related witness and his evidence cannot be based upon to give conviction, so his evidence is not safe to base on for conviction. PW1 version has not been supported by any independent witness. Hence, mental harassment has not been proved. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses whispered about the physical harassment by Accused towards PW1. Hence, with all the evidence on record the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC charged against the Sole Accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, none of the prosecution witnesses whispered about the physical harassment and demand of additional dowry and mental harassment i.e., paternity of male child of PW1 as deposed only by PW1

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 6 of 7

and 3 and PW1 denied complaint and turned hostile. Moreover, PW3 is the brother of PW1 and interested witness. Hence, there is no substantive piece of evidence to base conviction upon of the sole accused for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the charges of Sec. 498-A IPC against Sole Accused. Hence, Accused acquitted for offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC.

Point answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act a. If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or

takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry,

b. he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry.

15. PW1 in her chief stated that her parents gave Rs.30,000/- cash, 5 thulas of gold and house hold articles to the Accused and moreover PW1 turned hostile and none of the prosecution witnesses PW2 to 5 whispered single word regarding giving of dowry by PW1 family or taking of dowry of Accused. Hence, the charge of Sec. 3 of D.P. Act 1961 not proved beyond reasonable doubt against sole accused. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of Sec.3 of D.P. Act against sole accused. Accused acquitted for the offence U/Sec. 3 of D.P. Act. Hence, point answered against prosecution and in favour of Sole

Accused.

Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Penalty for demanding dowry.— a. If any person demands b. Such demand may be direct or indirect, c. Such demand may be from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom d. The person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. None of the prosecution witnesses whispered single word regarding the demand of dowry, directly or indirectly by the Accused parents or his relative or his guardian or himself. Hence, the charge of Sec.4 of D.P. Act against Sole Accused not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to prove the charge of

Sec.4 of D.P. Act against Sole Accused, so Accused acquitted for the offence

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 634/2015 Page 7 of 7

U/Sec.4 of D.P. Act. Hence, Point answered in favour of Accused and against prosecution.

Result/Finding:

In the result this court found Sole Accused is not guilty for offences

U/Sec.498-A of IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as the offences charge against Sole Accused U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Sole Accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act as per Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. No case property has been seized or deposited in this case. Bail Bonds if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

(Typed by my personal Assistant on dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10 th day of February, 2022)

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet .

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION FOR

Prosecution: PW-1: Perka Saritha. PW-2: Nagu Bayamma. PW-3: Nagu Santhosh. PW-4: Nagu Anjaiah. PW-5: G.Raja Shekar. Defence: ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P.2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P.3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P.4: is First Information Report. Defence: ---NIL---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ramannapet

//TRUE COPY//

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Dt. 10-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 1 of 7

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

AT RAMANNAPET

Present: - Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi., Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

(Dated this the 07 th day of February, 2022)

C.C.No. 856 of 2021

Between:-

The State, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Valigonda. ...Prosecution AND

A-1: Sayyed Sadulla, S/o. Kareem, Age: 24 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Stone cutting work, R/o. Thurkasi Nagar, Kodimiyala Mandal, Jagtial District. A-2: Sk.Ali Jaffar, S/o. Chandoli, Age: 29 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Stone cutting work, R/o. Nemalibanda Village of Kodimiyala Mandal, Jagtial District. A-5: Sk. Shareef, S/o. Chinna Kareem, Age: 29 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Stone cutting work, R/o. Thurkasi nagar, Kodimiyala Mandal, Jagtial District. A-6: Sk. Azeem, S/o. Chinna Kareem, Age: 21 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Stone cutting work, R/o. Thurkasi nagar, Kodimiyala Mandal, Jagtial District. …Accused No.1 to 4

This case is coming for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State by Sri. P.Venkata Avinash, and Sri. J.Prabhakar, Advocate on behalf of the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Valigonda Police Station filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.282/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec 380 r/w 511 of IPC.

Prosecution of the case The Contents of Charge Sheet in brief is as follows:

a)The facts of the case are that on 03-09-2021 the complainant completed the

Pooja Programmes by 08.30 pm, closed the temple, locked and went to home. Later as usual today i.e., 04-09-2021 at 05.00 am, he went to the temple to offer prayer for the Lord Saibaba and found that, the locks of temple and grill

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 2 of 7

gate were broken. Immediately, he informed the same to the Chairman of said temple LW2/Padamati Surekha Reddy. Upon which she visited the temple and went inside the temple and found missing of two cash chests. Then they searched for the said cash chests and found the big cash chest at temple fencing and the small cash chest at nearby thorny bush. Some unknown thieves have attempted to commit theft of cash from the cash chests, but in vain. Then they left the same nearby the temple and went away. As such the complainant requested to take legal action against the said culprits. On receipt of the above complaint given by the complainant, the LW9/K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I of

Police, Nakrekal Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.282/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 R/w 511 IPC and took up the Investigation.

b)Charge sheet further reveals that during the course of investigation, LW9/

K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station examined the complainant and recorded his statement in C.D Part-II. Later, LW9/ K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I of Police, Nakrekal Police Station had been to the

Scene of Offence situated at Sai Baba Temple, Tekula Somaram village caused detailed enquiry in this regard, examined LW2/Padamati Surekha Reddy and

LW3/Bhykya Amar Singh and recorded their statements in C.D Part-II. Further, LW9/K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station observed the crime scene minutely, secured the presence of two mediators LW4/Panamati

Janga Reddy and LW5/Chinthala Anjaiah and drawn rough sketch. On 08-10- 2021 the LW8/Keesara Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Nakrekal Police Station apprehended the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 in Cr.No. 274/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of Nakrekal Police Station and interrogated them thoroughly. During the interrogation, the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 confessed to have commit this offence too among others thefts along with two others. On that, the LW8/Keesara Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Nakrekal Police Station recorded the confession statements of the said apprehended accused before the LW6/Vantepaka Sundaraiah and LW7/Shaik Sayyed, recovered the booty in the above said and then remanded them to Judicial custody.

c)Charge sheet further reveals that on receipt of the above information, the

LW9/K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station collected the

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 3 of 7

certified copies of FIR, Remand Report and Confession statements of Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 in Cr.No. 274/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of Nakrekal Police Station filed a requisition in the Hon’ble Court for issuing prisoner transit warrant against the accused persons to remand them in this case, as they involved in this case too. Accordingly, the Hon’ble court issued prisoner transit warrant against the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6. Upon which, 20-10- 2021 the LW9/K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station produced the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 before the Hon’ble Court on prisoner transit warrant and remanded them to Judicial Custody. The complainant filed the complaint, on receipt of complaint, LW9/K.Raghavendar Goud, S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.282/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 of IPC and took up investigation and dispatched the Original F.I.R to this Hon’ble Court.

Cognizance

2.Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 of IPC has been taken against Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6.

3.On appearance of the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 before this court, copies of the case record were furnished to Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 of IPC.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

4.Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 were examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 of IPC, for which accused denied the charge sheet allegations and the substance of allegations levelled against Accused

No.1, 2 & 5, 6 have been explained to them in their vernacular language (Telugu) for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW9, were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked, LW1/Damuluri Suryanarayana examined as PW1. LW2/Padamati

Surekha Reddy examined as PW2. LW3/Bukya Amar Singh examined as PW3. LW4/Panamati Janga Reddy examined as PW4. LW5/Chinthala Anjaiah examined as PW5. LW6/Vantepaka Sundaraiah examined as PW6. LW7/Shaik Sayyed examined as PW7. LW9/K.Raghavender Goud examined as PW8.

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 4 of 7

LW8/Keesara Nagaraju examined as PW9. Exhibits marked by Prosecution are Ex.P.1: is report filed by PW1. Ex.P.2: Signature of PW4 in Crime Detail Form. Ex.P.3: Signature of PW5 in Crime Detail Form. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW6 in

Confession and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P.5: First Information Report. Ex.P.6: True copy/Certified copy of Confessional and Seizure panchanama.

Examination of Accused after Trial

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating evidence found against them, for which Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 reported no defence evidence. Hence the Defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the learned APP and the Learned Counsel for Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6.

Arguments

7. Learned Counsel for Accused submitted that prosecution in order to prove this case examined witnesses PW1 to 9, PW1 is complainant, PW2 & 3 are circumstantial witnesses, PW4 & 5 are panch for scene of offence, PW6 & 7 panch for confession and recovery of Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. PW8 is Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. PW9 is Investigating Officer who arrested Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. PW1 is complainant. PW2 & 3 are circumstantial witnesses, PW2 & 3 are not eye witnesses and their evidence is no way helpful not established the identity of the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. PW4 & 5 are panchas for scene of offence. PW6 & 7 are panchas for confession for Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. PW4 to 7 panchas and their evidence is no substantive piece of evidence.

PW8 & 9 evidence of official witnesses is formal in nature. None of the prosecution witnesses whispered the identity of the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 except PW6 & 7 and none of the prosecution witnesses are eye witnesses of the offence. Hence, the charge U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 IPC against the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 not proved. Hence, I pray this Hon’ble Court to acquit the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6.

8. Learned APP PW1 to 9 evidence corroborated about the offence U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 IPC and evidence of PW6 & 7 panchas of confession and recovery

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 5 of 7

panchanama identified the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. Hence, he prayed this Hon’ble Court to convict the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 in the interests of justice.

Now, the point for determination is :

a) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 511 IPC?.

Sec 380 IPC deals with:- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or

vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used

for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be

liable to fine

Essential ingredients of Section 380 IPC which has also been charged against the accused person are,

a) There must be commission of theft,

b) Such commission of theft must have been done in a building, tenancy or vicinity.

c) Such building, tenancy or vicinity must have been used as the demand dishonestly.

Prosecution in order to bring the guilt home of Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 for offence under section 380 r/w 511 IPC must prove the above three essential ingredients. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW1 to PW9.

9.PW1 to 3 corroborated about the attempt to commit theft of two cash chest at

Saibaba temple at Tekula Somaram village of Valigonda Mandal, but none of them whispered about the identity of the Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6, as such they are not eye witnesses for the incident. Though witnesses PW4 specified boundaries of the scene of offence, it is not substantive piece of evidence. PW5 turned hostile. As such PW4 is not eye witness for the incident.

10.PW6 & 7 panchas for confession cum recovery panchanama of Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 deposed that the confession has been taken place in their presence and

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 6 of 7

there were no recovery of case property, it was only the commission of attempt to theft and no commission of theft in dwelling house as per Sec. 380 IPC, as such confession before the panchas is not relating to any recovery. Hence, it is not falling within ambit of Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act, but falling within ambit of Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act, confession in the custody of police is not relevant and admissible evidence. Hence, the identity by PW6 & 7 of Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 is not admissible evidence to base conviction upon.

Further the evidence of PW8 & 9 Investigating Officers who are official witnesses whose evidence is formal in nature is not substantive piece of evidence to base conviction upon.

11.With all the evidence on record, though attempt to commission of theft in dwelling house is established but the identity of Accused is not established because none of the prosecution witnesses whispered about the identity of the accused except PW6 & 7. Moreover, PW6 & 7 are not eye witnesses to the incident. As there is no independent evidence and also substantive piece of evidence. Furthermore, identity of accused not established, though PW6 & 7 deposed that they can identify Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 it is not admissible fact as per Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, Charges of offence U/Sec.380 r/w 511 IPC are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to prove the charges U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 IPC against Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6. Therefore, Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 acquitted for the charges U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 of IPC. Hence, Point answered in favour of Accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 and against prosecution.

Result/Finding:

In the result this court found Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 found not guilty for offences U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 IPC as the charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Accused No.1, 2 & 5, 6 acquitted for offences U/Sec. 380 r/w 511 IPC as per Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds if any shall be in force for 6 months from date of judgment. No case property seized or deposited in this case.

(Dictated to my personal Assistant on dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 07 th day of February, 2022)

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet .

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No. 856/2021 Page 7 of 7

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION FOR

Prosecution:

PW-1: Damuluri Suryanarayana. PW-2: Padamati Surekha Reddy. PW-3: Bukya Amar Singh. PW-4: Panamati Janga Reddy. PW-5: Chinthala Anjaiah. PW-6: Vantepaka Sundaraiah PW-7: Shaik Sayyed. PW-8: K.Raghavender Goud. PW-9: Keesara Nagaraju.

Defence: ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: is report filed by PW1. Ex.P.2: Signature of PW4 in Crime Detail Form. Ex.P.3: Signature of PW5 in Crime Detail Form. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW6 in Confession and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P.5: First Information Report. Ex.P.6: True copy/Certified copy of Confessional and Seizure panchanama.

Defence: ---NIL---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ramannapet

//TRUE COPY//

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Dt. 07-02-2021 Add. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 1 of 6

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

RAMANNAPET

Present:- Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet. (Dated this the 25th day of April, 2022)

C.C. No. 902 OF 2021

Between:-

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Excise Chandur Police Station. …Complainant. AND

1.Mandili Venkanna, S/o.Buchaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelikatte Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2.Mandili Maraiah, S/o. Shivaiah, Age: 53 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yelikatte Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Accused No.1 & 2

This is coming for disposal before me in the presence of APP Sri.P.Venkata Avinash, for the prosecution and of Sri.N.Mogulaiah and Sri.N.Swamy, Advocates for the Accused having heard them, having perused the material papers and having stood over for the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector of Police, Excise Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet in COR.No.14/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 27 r/w 40 of

Telangana Excise Act – 1968.

Prosecution of the case

2. The contents of the charge sheet in brief as follows:

2.1. That on 07-04-2020 at about 12.35 p.m., LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and

Excise Sub Inspector, Chandur Excise Station received one complaint through Prohibition & Excise Officer, Chandur. About cutting down toddy (Excise) trees in

Sy.No.17 in the village limits of Yelikatte village of Chityal Mandal, there the LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chandur Excise Station collected LW1/Mandagula Venkatesham & LW2/Pagilla Anjaiah as mediators to enquiry into the complaint and then they reached to the said agriculture land and found cutting down of (01) toddy tree, then LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and Excise

Sub Inspector, Chandur Excise Station had informed to LW1/Mandagula

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 2 of 6

Venkatesham & LW2/Pagilla Anjaiah that without prior permission from the authorities cutting down of date (Excise) trees is an ofence udner Telangana Excise Act – 1968. Then the LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector,

Chandur Excise Station has conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of LW1/Mandagula Venkatesham & LW2/Pagilla Anjaiah and informed to them that there it is not convenient to take away that excise tree to the Police Station and the Accused persons have absconded from scene of offence.

2.2. Charge sheet further reveals that after returning to Prohibition & Excise Station, Chandur, the LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector,

Chandur Excise Station has registered a case in COR.No.14/2020, dt.07-04-2020 for the offence U/Sec. 27 r/w 40 of Telangana Excise Act – 1968. The

LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chandur Excise Station submitted original case papers before the Hon’ble Court, Nalgonda. During the course of investigation LW4/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chandur

Excise Station has served a notice U/Sec.41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C on 10-09-2021 to the absconding and accused and directed Accused to appear before him within one week for enquiry of the case. Accordingly the Accused has appeared before the LW4/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Chandur Excise Station for enquiry on 13-09-2021 and admitted himself the case. After enquiry LW4/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Chandur Excise Station has served a notice and instructed accused persons to appear befoe the Hon’ble Court after receipt of summons. During the course of investigation the LW4/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Chandur Excise Station has obtained the copy of pattadar pass book and copy of 1-B issued by from the Government of Telangana of said agriculture land LW4/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Chandur Excise

Station and its noticed that the scene of offence land is existing in Sy.No. 17. LW3/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Chandur Excise Station submitted original case papers before the Hon’ble Court.

2.3. Charge sheet further reveals that the investigation discloses that Accused

No.1 & 2 are intentionally of cutting down toddy trees in Sy.No.17 (01 toddy trees) at agricultural well situated at Yelikatte village oc Chityal Mandal without having any valid license or permit. As such the Accused persons are contravened the provisions of offence under section 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968 (Telangana

Adaptation) Order, 2015 and liable for punishment for the offence under section 27

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 3 of 6

r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968 (Telangana Adaptation) Order 2015. Hence, the

Charge sheet.

Cognizance

3.Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968 has been taken against Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 & 2 before this court, copies of the case record was furnished to Accused No.1 & 2, as per Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5.Accused No.1 & 2 were examined under 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec. 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968, for which Accused No.1 & 2 denied the charge sheet allegations and the substance of allegations levelled against Accused No.1 & 2 have been explained to them in their vernacular language (Telugu) for which they pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried.

The Prosecution Evidence

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW-1 to PW-3, were examined and Ex.P-1 &

Ex.P-2 are marked, LW-1/Mandagula Venkatesham/Panch witnesses examined as

PW1. LW2/Pagilla Anjaiah/Panch witness examined as PW2. LW3/MD.Yousuf/ Investigation Officer who registered complaint examined as PW3. LW4/D.C.B. Naik,

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chandur Excise Station evidence has been closed. Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW1 on Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.2 is Crime

Occurrence Report.

Examination of Accused after Trial

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 & 2 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating evidence found against her, for which Accused No.1 & 2 denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses Accused

No.1 & 2 reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the learned APP and the Learned Counsel for Sole Accused.

ARGUMENTS

9.Counsel for Accused submitted that PW1 & PW2 panch witnesses and not eye witnesses. PW3 Investigation Officer apart from this there is no independent

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 4 of 6

substantive piece of evidence to convict Accused. Hence, Accused may be acquitted in the Interests of Justice.

10. Learned APP stated that Panch witnesses PW1 & PW2 and PW3 is

Investigation Officer corroborated regarding the offence alleged against Accused.

Hence, Accused may be convicted in the Interests of Justice.

Now, the point for determination is :

a) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilty of Accused beyond all the

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.27 r/w 40 of Telangana

Excise Act 1968?

PW1 & 2 panch witnesses turned hostile. PW3 is Investigation Officer whose evidence is formal in nature. PW1 & 2 denied the contents of Scene of offence

Panchanama.

Sec. 27 of Telangana Excise Act 1968 deals with prohibition of cutting down or destroying of excise trees. Essential ingredients:-

a) there must be of cutting down or destroying any excise trees.

b) such cutting down or destroying excise trees have been done without the permission of the Collector or such Officer as may be empowered by the Government on his behalf.

Sec. 40 of Telangana Excise Act, the provisions of Sec. 27 penalty for cutting down or destroying excise trees.

Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW1 to 3 out of list of witnesses 4 and LW4/Chemical examiner evidence has been closed. PW1 panch witnesses deposed that he witnessed toddy trees being cut on the boundary belonging to Accused No.1 & 2 and Govardan Reddy, which was alleged to been cut by Accused No.1 & 2, due to boundary disputes. PW1 in his cross admitted that

Panchanama has been conducted and he has not witnessed cutting down of toddy trees neither he knows who has cut the toddy trees. PW1 evidence is contradicting regarding time of panchanama being conducted. PW1 evidence as panch is only corroborative regarding toddy trees being cut. PW1 himself admitted he is not eye witnesses and neither he know who has cut toddy trees and when they are been cut.

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 5 of 6

PW2 panch witnesses deposed that Accused No.1 & 2 cut toddy trees on 07- 04-2020 at 04.00 to 04.30 p.m., due to land dispute with Govardan Reddy. PW2 panch witness in cross admitted that he has witnessed Accused No.1 & 2 cutting toddy trees. In panchanama PW2 has not stated that he has witnessed Accused

No.1 & 2cutting trees it is an embellishment by PW2. In Tahsildar Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012. “It was held that major omission is treated as contradiction”. PW2 herein not stated in panchanama that he has witnessed

Accused No.1 & 2 cutting down toddy trees which he stated in his cross and it is a major omission and contradiction and hence the evidence of witness of PW1 & 2 are impeached as per section 155 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, PW1 & PW2 evidence is not safe to base conviction upon.

PW3 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed in chief that after receving complaint he visited scene of offence and found toddy trees cut in Sy.No.17 and neighbour of such land deposed that Accused No.1 & 2 had cut the excise trees and later he approached Accused No.1 & 2 regarding present crime as they do not have license to cut toddy trees. It shows that evidence of PW3 too is hearsay as such PW3 is official witness and his evidence is formal in nature.

With all the evidence on record, PW1 to PW3 evidence not safe to conviction as none of them are eye witneses as such PW1 & PW2 are panch witnesses. PW3 is official witnesses and his evidence is formal in nature. There is no substantive piece of evidence to convict Accused for offence under section 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968. Hence, offence under section 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968 not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against Accused No.1 & 2. Prosecution failed to prove offence alleged under section 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968 against Accused No.1 & 2. Therefore, Accused No.1 & 2 acquitted for the offence under section 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968. Hence, point answered in favourof Accused No.1 & 2 and against prosecution.

Result/Finding: In the result this court found Accused No.1 & 2 not guilty for offences

U/Sec. 27 r/w 40 of T.S. Excise Act – 1968, as the offence alleged against Accused No.1 & 2 not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Accused

No.1 & 2 acquitted for offence Sec. 27 r/w 40 of T.S Excise Act – 1968, under

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.902/2021 Page 6 of 6

section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused No.1 & 2 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment. No Case Property has been deposited in this case.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 25 st day of April, 2022)

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION FOR

Prosecution: PW1 LW1/Panch witness Mandagula Venkatesham PW2 LW2/Panch witness Pagilla Anjaiah PW4 LW3/I.O MD.Yousuf DEFENCE: ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Exhibits Date Document Ex.P.1 - Signature of PW1 on Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.2 - Crime Occurrence Report.

DEFENCE: ---NIL---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

// TRUE COPY//

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Dt.25-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 1 of 6

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

RAMANNAPET

Present:- Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

(Dated this the 31st day of March, 2022)

C.C. No. 11 OF 2022

Between:-

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Excise Chandur Police Station. …Complainant. AND

Burga Ramesh, S/o. Somaiah, Aged: 49 years, Occ: Business, Caset: Mala, R/o. Urumadla Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Accused

This is coming for disposal before me in the presence of APP Sri.P.Venkata Avinash, for the prosecution and of Sri.M.Venkatesham and Sri.G.Lingaiah, Advocate for the Accused having heard them, having perused the material papers and having stood over for the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector of Police, Excise Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet in COR.No.13/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) Telangana

Excise Act – 1968 & Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act – 1995.

Prosecution of the case

2. The contents of the charge sheet in brief as follows:

2.1. That on 07-04-2020 on reliable information about unauthorized sales of Indian made Liquor at the house of the Accused/Bunga Ramesh of Urumadla Village of Chityal mandal, the LW4/N.Ashok, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector and staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses LW1/Songu Janaiah and LW2/Soma Raghuma Reddy, at about 10.30 a.m., reached the house and

LW4/N.Ashok, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector knocked the doors one person has come out on enquiry the person has revealed his particulars as Accused/Bunga

Ramesh. The LW4/N.Ashok, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, recorded search memo and served to him. On search of the house of the Accused found (09) bottles of MC whiskey (180 ml). Upon which LW4/N.Ashok, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, drawn samples, seized the samples and remaining contraband under the

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 2 of 6

cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1/Songur Jangaiah & LW2/Soma Raghuma Reddy. The LW4/N.Ashok, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector handed over the samples, seized property along with Accused person to the Prohibition & Excise station Chandoor on 07-04-2020 at 11.30 a.m. The LW5/MD.Yousuf,

Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector basing on panchanama registered a case in Cr.No.13/2020, U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act – 1968 (Adaptation order – 2015)

Accused arrested and released. Submitted the case papers before the Hon’ble Court and the samples are sent for Chemical Examination through Excise Station,

Chandoor. Second samples are deposited before the Hon’ble Court. The remaining seized property was deposited before the Dy. Commissioner of Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation. The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample issued

C.E Report No.479/2020, dt.03-07-2020 opined that the sample in Sl.No.4526 contains alcohol, it is Indian liquor. The LW6/D.C.B Naik, Prohibition & Excise

Inspector investigation and evidence collected therein established that the Accused was found in possession of (09) bottles of M.C Whiskey (180ml) at Urumadla village purchased the same from a wine shop for sale purpose without having any valid license or permit. As such Accused contravened the provision of Sec. 34 (a) of T.S.

Excise Act – 1968 (Telangana Adaption) order 2015 and liable for punishment U/Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995. Hence the Charge sheet.

Cognizance

3.Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 and

Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act - 1995 has been taken against Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused before this court, copies of the case record was furnished to Accused, as per Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5.Accused was examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.

34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 and Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act - 1995, for which Accused denied the charge sheet allegations and leveled against him has been explained to him in his vernacular language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 3 of 6

The Prosecution Evidence

6.On behalf of the prosecution PW-1 to PW-5, were examined and Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-4 are marked, LW5/MD.Yousuf Investigation Officer who registered a case examined as PW1, LW1/Songu Janaiah is panch witnesses examined as PW2.

LW2/Soma Raghuma Reddy is panch witnesses examined as PW3. LW4/N.Ashok, Investigation Officer examined as PW4. LW6/D.C.B Naik, Investigation Officer who filed charge sheet examined as PW5. Ex.P.1 is COR marked PW1. Ex.P.2 is

Signature of PW2 on Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P.3 is the Signature of PW3 on Scene Offence cum Seizure Panchanama. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P.4 is Chemical Examiner Report marked by PW5.

Examination of Accused after Trial

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating evidence found against him, for which Accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the learned APP and the Learned Counsel for Sole Accused.

ARGUMENTS

9.Learned counsel for Accused submitted that seizure of liquor from Accusd not proved as PW2 & 3 panch witness turned hostile. Hence, possession of IMFL by Accused as lleged for offence section 34 (a) T.S Excise Act r/w 8(b)(1) of A.P

Prohibition Act 1995 not proved. Hence, Accused may be acquitted in the Interests of Justice.

10. Learned APP submitted that PW1, 4, 5 corroborated the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act r/w section 8 (b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1996 alleged against Accused. Hence, Accused may be convicted in the Interests of Justice.

Now, the point for determination is :

a) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilty of Accused beyond all the

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of Telangana

Excise Act R/w 8 (b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act – 1995?

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 4 of 6

Sec. 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act

a) there must be a commit of import, export, transport, manufacture, collects or possesses or sell any intoxicant.

b) such import, export, transport, manufacture, collects or possesses or sell any intoxicant may be done in contravention of any invention order made issued, passed there need or issued under this act.

Sec. 8 (b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

a) Accused must have possessed, collected, purchased, sold, transported, produced or manufactured any liquor other than arrack.

b) the above possession, collect, transport, produce or manufacture any liquor other than arrack must have been done in terms of any rule, notification, order, license or permit then accused have committed U/Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition

Act.

LW5/MD.Yousuf Investigation Officer who registered a case examined as

PW1, LW1/Songu Janaiah is panch witnesses examined as PW2. LW2/Soma Raghuma Reddy is panch witnesses examined as PW3. LW4/N.Ashok, Investigation

Officer examined as PW4. LW6/D.C.B Naik, Investigation Officer who filed charge sheet examined as PW5.

PW1 investigation officer deposed in chief that on receiving credible information he went to Kurumadla and served search memo on Accused and later searched and seized 9 bottles of whiskey 180 ml and found it to be IMFL and later registered a case and issued FIR. PW1 admitted that in cross that he do not know survey number or boundaries of house from which, such IMFL has been seized. PW2 panch witness turned hostile. PW3 panch witness turned hostile. PW4 corroborated PW1 and PW4 admitted in cross that he do not know survey number or boundaries of house4 from which such IMFL has been seized. PW5 deposed in chief that he did investigation and collected chemical report and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

Section 42 T.S Excise Act 1968

With all the evidence on record as per section 42 of T.S Excise Act on seizure of liquor, Accused is in possession of IMFL liquor. Seizure of 9 bottles of whiskey

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 5 of 6

180 ml as deposed by the PW1, PW4, PW5 in the presence of PW2 & 3 panchas not proved as such PW2 & 3 turned hostile. Section 34(a) of T.S Excise Act r/w 8 (b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 alleged against Accused for possession of 9 bottles of whiskey 180 ml without any authorization has not been proved. Even though chemical examiner report shows that seized liquor is IMFL but as the panchas PW2 & PW3 turned hostile. Hence, seizure of 9 bottles whiskey 180 ml not proved. As the seizure panchanama not proved possession of IMFL liquor i.e., 9 bottles of MC whiskey 180 ml by Accused not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,

Accused acquitted for offence under section 34 (a) T.S. Excise Act 1968 r/w section 8(b)(1) A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act 1995. Therefore, prosecution failed prove to the offences alleged against Accused under section 34 (a) T.S. Excise Act 1968 r/w section 8(b)(1) A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 agaisnt Accused. Hence, point answered in favour of Accused and against prosecution.

Result/Finding :

In the result this court found Accused not guilty for offences U/Sec. 34

(a) of T.S. Excise Act and Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act, as the charges not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Accused acquitted for offence

Sec. 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 and Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act – 1995, under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment. Case Property seized in this case C.P.No.124/2021 shall be destroyed as case has been disposed by pronouncement of judgment.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2022)

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION FOR

Prosecution:

PW1 LW5/I.O/Registered case MD.Yousuf PW2 LW1/Panch witness Songu Janaiah PW3 LW2/Panch witness Soma Raghuma Reddy PW4 LW4/I.O N.Ashok PW5 LW6/IO/Filed charge sheet D.C.B.Naik

DEFENCE: ---NIL ---

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.11/2022 Page 6 of 6

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Exhibits Date Document Ex.P.1 07-04-2020 COR Ex.P.2 07-04-2020 Signature of PW2 on Scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P.3 07-04-2020 Signature of PW3 on Scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 03-07-2020 Chemical Examiner Report

DEFENCE: ---NIL ---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

//TRUE COPY//

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Dt.31-03-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 1 of 6

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

RAMANNAPET

Present:- Smt. T Durga Rani Kalidindi, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

(Dated this the 06th day of April, 2022)

C.C. No. 10 OF 2022

Between:-

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Excise Chandur Police Station. …Complainant. AND

Madhagoni Shankaraiah, S/o. Rathaiah, Age: 52 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Dthallavelmla village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Accused

This is coming for disposal before me in the presence of APP Sri.P.Venkata Avinash, for the prosecution and of Sri.M.A.Majeed and Sri.N.Swamy, Advocate

for the Accused having heard them, having perused the material papers and having

stood over for the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector of Police, Excise Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet in COR.No.04/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) Telangana

Excise Act – 1968 & Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act – 1995.

Prosecution of the case

2.

The contents of the charge sheet in brief as follows:

2.1. That on 14-02-2020 on reliable information about unauthorized sales of Indian made liquor at the house of Madhagoni Shankaraiah at Thallavellmla of

Chityal Mandal. The LW4/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector and staff went to the above place and secured two panchas LW1/Bheemagoni Madhu &

LW2/Thota Venu. At about 02.30 p.m., reached the house and LW4/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector knocked the doors one person came out on enquiry the person revealed his particulars as Madhagoni Shankaraiah/Accused.

The LW4/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector recorded search memo and served to him. On search of the house found (12) bottles of King Fisher Premium beer (650ml). Upon which LW4/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 2 of 6

drawn samples, seized the sampled and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1/Bheemagoni Madhu & LW2/Thota Venu. The samples and seized property along with the Accused taken to the Prohibition & Excise Station Chandur on 14-02-2020 at 04.45 p.m. The LW4/MD.Yousuf,

Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector registered a case in Cr.No.04/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act – 1968 (Adaptation order – 2015)

Accused arrested and released. Submitted the case papers before the Hon’ble Court and the samples are sent for Chemical Examination through Excise Station,

Chandoor. Second set of samples are deposited before the Hon’ble Court. The remaining seized property has been deposited before the Dy. Commissioner of

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation. The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample issued C.E Report No.479/2020, dt.03-07-2020 opined that the sample in Sl.No.4511 contains alcohol, it is Indian liquor. The LW5/D.C.B Naik,

Prohibition & Excise Inspector after completion of investigation and collecting of evidence therein established that the Accused was found in possession of (12) bottles of King Fisher Premium Beer (650ml) at Thallavellmla of Chityal Mandal, purchased the same from a wine shop for sale purpose without having any valid license or permit. As such Accused contravened the provision of Sec. 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act – 1968 (Telangana Adaption) order 2015 and liable for punishment

U/Sec. 8 (b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995. Hence the Charge sheet.

Cognizance

3.

Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 and

Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act - 1995 has been taken against Accused.

4.

On appearance of the Accused before this court, copies of the case record was furnished to Accused, as per Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

Examination of the Accused before Trial

5.

Accused was examined under 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.

34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 and Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act - 1995, for which Accused denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against Accused has been explained to him in his vernacular language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried.

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 3 of 6

The Prosecution Evidence

6.

On behalf of the prosecution PW-1 to PW-4, were examined and Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-4 are marked, PW-1/MD.Yousuf Investigation Officer who registered a case, PW2/Bheemagoni Madhu is panch witness. PW3/D.C.B. Naik, Prohibition & Excise

Inspector who filed Charge sheet. PW4/Thota Venu is panch witness. LW3/Chemical Examiner evidence closed. Ex.P.1 is COR marked PW1. Ex.P.2 is Signature of PW2 on Seizure panchanama. Ex.P.3 is Chemical Examiner Report marked by PW3. Ex.P.4 is Signature of PW4 on Seizure panchanama.

Examination of Accused after Trial

7.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating evidence found against him, for which Accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

8.

Heard the learned APP and the Learned Counsel for Sole Accused.

ARGUMENTS

9.

Counsel for accused submitted that prosecution in order to prove the guilt of

Accused for the offence under section 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995 and under section 34 (a) of Telangana Excise Act this case has examined witnesses PW1 to 4 out of list of witnesses LW1 to 4. LW4/MD.Yousuf, Prohibition & Excise Sub

Inspector examined as PW1. LW1/Bheemagoni Madhu examined as PW2. LW5/D.C.B. Naik Prohibition & Excise Inspector examined as PW3. LW2/Thota

Venu, Panch witness examined as PW4. LW3/Chemical Examiner evidence is closed. PW2 & PW4 panch witnesses for scene cum seizure panchanama turned hostile.

PW3 & PW1 are police official who has done the investigation and their evidence is formal in nature.

10.

Learned APP submitted that PW1 & PW3 corroborated and offence alleged against Accused proved. Hence, Accused may be punished according to law.

Now, the point for determination is :

a) Whether the Prosecution has proved guilty of Accused beyond all the

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of Telangana

Excise Act R/w U/Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act – 1995?

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 4 of 6

Sec. 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act R/w Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act – 1995

a) there must be an act of import, export, transport, manufacture, collects or possesses or sell any intoxicant.

b) such import, export, transport, manufacture, collects or possesses or sell any intoxicant may be done in contravention of any order made issued, passed there under or issued under this act.

Sec. 8 (b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995

a) Accused must have possessed, collected, purchased, sold, transported, produced or manufactured any liquor other than arrack.

b) the above possession, collect, transport, produce or manufacture any liquor other than arrack must have been done in terms of any rule, notification, order, license or permit then accused have committed U/Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995.

Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 r/w U/Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act – 1995 examined prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4.

LW4/MD.Yousuf, P&ESI Chandur Station examined as PW1. LW1/Bheemagoni

Madhu examined as PW2. LW5/D.C.B. Naik, P&EI, Chandur station examined as PW3. LW2/Thota Venu examined as PW4. LW3/Chemical Examiner evidence has been closed. PW1 deposed that he seized liquor from the accused in the presence of panch witnesses PW2 & PW4. PW3 Investigation Officer deposed that he collected the chemical examiner report. Chemical examiner report given by LW3 and has been collected by PW3 stated that the items seized are liquor.

Sec. 42 of TS Excise Act – 1968 deals with presumption as to commission

of offence in certain cases. Prosecution under section 34, 37, 37-A be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of

a)any intoxicant or

b)any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

c)any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of any intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 5 of 6

manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily

In the present case PW1 and PW3 Investigation Officers deposed that 12 bottles of King fisher premium beer 650 ml seized from Accused. As per section 42 of T.S Excise Act – 1968. It is presumed that seized IMFL was in possession. But as per the evidence seizure of above said liquor from accused not proved. Hence, possession of IMFL by accused too not proved. Hence, charge under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 against Accused not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, accused acquitted for offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 R/w U/Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act – 1995. Therefore, point answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

Result/Finding :

In the result this court found Accused not guilty for offences U/Sec. 34

(a) of T.S. Excise Act R/w Sec. 8(b)(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act – 1995, as the charges not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Accused acquitted for offence Sec. 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act – 1968 R/w Sec. 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act – 1995, under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment. Case Property seized in this case C.P.No.123/2021 shall be destroyed as case has been disposed by pronouncement of judgment.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 06 th day of April, 2022)

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION FOR

Prosecution:

PW1 LW4/P&ESI MD.Yousuf PW2 LW1/Panch witness Bheemagoni Madhu PW3 LW5/P&EI D.C.B. Naik PW4 LW2/Panch witness Thota Venu

DEFENCE: ---NIL---

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet

C.C.No.10/2022 Page 6 of 6

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Exhibits Date Document Ex.P.1 14-02-2020 Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P.2 14-02-2020 Signature of PW2 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.3 03-07-2020 Chemical examiner report Ex.P.4 14-02-2020 Signature of PW4 on seizure panchanama

DEFENCE: ---NIL---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

// TRUE COPY//

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Dt.06-04-2022 Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet