T. Jyothsna Devi

1

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

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

PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE NO.441/2021

Between

The state, rep by the Station House Officer,

Rangampeta police station.

(Cr.No.154/2020) ….. Complainant

and

Guthula Srinu @ Nallavenkanna, S/o Krishna,

Age: 38 years, Caste: Settibalija,

Mukundavaram village of Rangampeta Mandal. ….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

Sk.Valli Babu, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 10-08- 2020 at about 11:30 A.M, while L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector,

Rangampeta police station received credible information about transporting of I.D.Arrack, then he along with his staff L.W.1

K.V.Satyanarayana, HC 2807 and L.W.2 K.Bheema Sankar, PC 1485, including L.W.3 B.Ganapathi, VRO of Mukundavarma village and

L.W.4 Gllapalli Ravi, and by the time they reached near Vadapalli cheruvu in Mukundavaram village of Rangampeta Mandal, there they found the accused under suspicious condition with one plastic tin, on examination the tin contain 30 liters of I.D.Arrack, the accused revealed his identity. On that L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector,

Rangampeta police station, informed the accused that it is an offence 2

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

under the A.P.P Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the 30 liters of I.D. Liquor a drawn 300 ml of I.D. liquor into one clean bottle for analysis purpose as sample, sealed the sample bottle and the gunny bag, affixed identity slips over them and seized entire property under cover of mediators report drafted in the place of offence.

On the basis of the mediators report, L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-

Inspector, Rangampeta police station, registered as first information report in Cr.No.154/2020 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner, Kakinada along with letter of advice for analysis purpose to chemical analyzer, Kakinada. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

Placing reliance on the Chemical analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of police,

Rangampeta police station, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act.

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

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the accused was examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code and charge was framed for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act and read over and explained the contents of charge to the accused in Telugu language.

After understood, the accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, besides the material object M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1.

11. P.W.2 is Investigating officer in this case, he testified that on 10-08-2020 at about 10:00 A.M, he along with his staff i.e., one HC 2807, PC 1485 are proceeded to the scene situated at

Mukundavaram village, near Vadapalli cheruvu in a general raid, there one male person is on suspicious manner, on enquiry he revealed his name as Guthula Srinu @ Nalla Venaknna searched him, he found he possessed one black colour plastic tin contains 30 liters of I.D.Arrack, he depute one PC 1485 to secure mediators. He secured mediators P.W.1 and one B.Gangapathi, VRO of

Mukundavaram. In their presence the mediators nama report was drafted by P.W.1 and he lifted 300 ml. as sample from I.D.Arrack and 4

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

he seized the total contraband and arrested the accused person under the cover of mediators nama report. Then, he put his signature on Ex.p1 mediator nama report. Later he registered Ex.P1 as in

Cr.No.154/2020 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.P.Act-2020. He arrested the accused and produced before

Honourable Court for judicial remand. He also forwarded letter

advice to the expert for analysis. On 28-08-2020 he received the chemical analysis report opining that the sample contain Illicit distilled liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12. In the cross- examination, P.W.2 admitted that one of the mediator by name G.Ravi is not the resident of Mukundavaram village. P.W.1 who is reached to the police station at 9:00 A.M and they were immediately started within 15 to 20 minutes to reach the scene of offence.

13. P.W.1 testified that he has been working as VRO of

Mukundavaram village since two years. On 10-08-2020 at about 11:30 A.M, Rangampeta police called him to police station.

Accordingly he went to police station and from there he went to

Tadepallivari cheruvu, Vadisaelru village in a jeep. There the yfound one person possessed one tin in suspicious manner and on seeing them, he tried to escape but he was apprehended by police and then enquired he revealed his name as Guthula Srinu and further stated that since he has possessed I.D.Arrack and on that he tried to escape from the police. Then Sub-Inspector of police opened the tin and found 30 liters of I.D.Arrack. The total contraband was seized by

Sub-Inspector of police under the cover of mediators report drafted by him. He along with Sub-Inspector of police put their signatures on 5

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

mediator nama report and mediator nama report was confronted

before witness the witness admitted the same. The sample of 300ml.

was drawn from contraband and was taken in a bottle. M.O.1 was the said bottle. P.W.1 further testified that he cannot identify the accused because he covered his face with hand curchief.

14. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 testified that at about 11:30

A.M, within half an hour they started from the police station to go to the alleged scene. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the alleged scene of offence is not within the jurisdiction of V.R.O. P.W.1 testified that police persons not issued any written summons to him to act as mediator in this case. It was also admitted by him that he did not obtained permission from any higher officials to act as mediator in this case. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that the identity particulars of the accused was not noted in Ex.P1.

15. So, on perusing of P.W.1 and P.W.2 evidence I found there is a contradiction of P.W.1 visit the scene and the time of visit. According to P.W.2 firstly he along with his staff reached to the alleged scene of offence at about 10:00 A.M when he find out the accused with possession of I.D.Arrack and he deputed one constable to secure

P.W.1 as mediator. But, here P.W.1 testified that Rangampeta police came to him at 11:30 A.M and requested him to act as mediator. As per their request he went to police station and from there the Sub-

Inspector of police and staff he and the other mediator went to the scene on police jeep. After that they found the accused in the possession of I.D.Arrack. So, there is no serious material contradiction with respect to reaching the scene by P.W.1 who is alleged mediator in this case.

6

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

16. As per the prosecution evidence, the identity particulars of the accused not noted in the Ex.P1 report. In fact accused was caught hold by P.W.2 that it should be noted in Ex.P1 report, but it was not.

Further P.W.1 was also not able to identify the accused as the person who caught hold by police in the possession of I.D.Arrack on 10-08- 2020. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was not the jurisdiction of

V.R.O to alleged scene of offence and he had not obtained permission from his higher officials to act as mediator. There was no document to show that he was really went to the alleged scene of offence along with P.W.2 and acted as mediator. I feel P.W.1 really went to the alleged scene of offence along with P.W.2 and the proceedings really conducted in his presence and he noted proceedings with hand writing. Any doubt arise from the prosecution evidence, benefit of doubt should always give in favour of the accused. It is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly it is my humble opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code.

The Material Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram 7

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : 02-03-2022 : B.Ganapathi,VRO of Mukundavarma village

P.W.2 : 15-03-2022 : Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of police.

For Defence:-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex. P1 : 10-08-2020 : Mediator report

Ex.P2 : 10-08-2020 : F.I.R

Ex. P3 : 28-08-2020 : Chemical analysis report.

For Defence:- Nil.

Materi Objects Marked

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram //TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, PEDDAPURAM.

8

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Ist Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022 CALENDER CASE NO.441/2021 Date of Offence:10-08-2020 Complaint:10-08-2020 Appearance of accused:14-09-2021 Arrest of the accused : 10-08-2020 Released on bail: 10-08-2020 Commencement of trial:02-03-2022 Closure of trial:15-03-2022 Sentence/Order:11-04-2022 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The state, rep by the Station House Officer, Rangampeta police station (Cr.No.154/2020)

Name of the accused:Guthula Srinu @ Nallavenkanna, S/o Krishna, Age: 38 years, Caste: Settibalija, Mukundavaram village of Rangampeta Mandal.

Offence:under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act

Sentence :In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Material Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY// 9

CC 441/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

1

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

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

PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE NO.742/2021

Between

The state, rep by the Station House Officer,

Rangampeta police station.

(Cr.No.188/2020) ….. Complainant

and

Seva Veerababu, S/o Paddayya, Age: 30 years,

Caste: SC Mala, Vadisaleru village of Rangampeta Mandal.

….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Sk.Valli Babu, Advocate

for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this

day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 05-10-2020 at about 9:30 A.M, while L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector, Rangampeta police station received credible information about transporting of

I.D.Arrack, then he along with his staff L.W.1 K.V.Satyanarayana, HC 2807 and L.W.2 K.Bheema Sankar, PC 1485, including L.W.3 Muppidi Yerra

Paddayya, VRO of Vadisaleru village and L.W.4 Muppidi Suresh, by the time they reached near Bhalabadruni cheruvu in Vadisaleru village of

Rangampeta Mandal, there they found the accused under suspicious condition with one plastic tin, on examination the tin contain 30 liters of

I.D.Arrack, the accused revealed his identity. On that L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar,

Sub-Inspector, Rangampeta police station, informed the accused that it is 2

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

an offence under the A.P.P Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the 30 liters of I.D. Liquor a drawn 300 ml of I.D. liquor into one clean bottle for analysis purpose as sample, sealed the sample bottle and the gunny bag, affixed identity slips over them and seized entire property under cover of mediators report drafted in the place of offence.

On the basis of the mediators report, L.W.5 Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-

Inspector, Rangampeta police station, registered as first information report in Cr.No.188/2020 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis to

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada along with letter of advice for analysis purpose to chemical analyzer, Kakinada. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Placing reliance on the

Chemical analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.5

Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of police, Rangampeta police station, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act.

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

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the accused was examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code and charge was framed for the offence under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act and read over and explained the contents of charge to the accused in Telugu language. After understood, the accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, besides the material object M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel

for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on

record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1.

11. P.W.2 is Investigating officer in this case, he testified that on 28- 10-2020 at about 08:00 A.M, he along with his staff i.e., one HC 2807, PC 1485 are proceeded to the scene situated at Vadisaleru village outskirts of near Balabhadruni cheruvu gattu in a general raid, there one male person is on suspicious manner, on enquiry he revealed his name as Seva

Veerababu searched him, he found he possessed one black colour plastic tin contains 30 liters of I.D.Arrack, he depute one PC 1485 to secure mediators. He secured mediators P.W.1 and one Maddipati Suresh, VRO of

Vadisaelru . In their presence the mediators nama report was drafted by

P.W.1 and he lifted 300 ml. as sample from I.D.Arrack and he seized the total contraband and arrested the accused person under the cover of mediators nama report. Then, he put his signature on Ex.p1 mediator 4

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

nama report. Later he registered Ex.P1 as in Cr.No.188/2020 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act-2020. He arrested the accused and produced before Honourable Court for judicial remand. He also forwarded letter advice to the expert for analysis. On 31-10-2020 he received the chemical analysis report opining that the sample contain Illicit distilled liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12. In the cross- examination, P.W.2 admitted that one of the mediator by name Maddipati Suresh coffee hotel adjacent to their police station. He further admitted that he drafted 10 to 15 mediator nama reports from their police station. It is also admitted by he did not file destruction proceedings before the Honoruable court and also not taken any photographs at the scene.

13. P.W.1 testified that he has been working as VRO of VAdisaleru village from 2019. On 28-10-2020 at about 8:00 A.M, Rangampeta police called him to police station. Accordingly he went to police station and from there he went to Balabhadruni Cheruvu Vadisaelru village of Rangampeta

Mandal in police jeep. There they found one person possessed one tin in suspicious manner and on seeing them, he tried to escape but he was apprehended by police and then enquired he revealed his identity particulars and he has possessed I.D.Arrack and on that he tried to escape from the police. Then Sub-Inspector of police opened the tin and found 30 liters of I.D.Arrack. The total contraband was seized by Sub-Inspector of polic under the cover of mediators report drafted by him. He along with

Sub-Inspector of police put their signatures on mediator nama report and mediator nama report was confronted before witness the witness admitted the same. The sample of 300ml. was drawn from contraband and was taken in a bottle. M.O.1 was the said bottle. P.W.1 further testified that he 5

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

can identify the accused when he showed to him. But on the date of his evidence the accused is called absent.

14. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 testified that one SI of police called him over phone, by that time he was present in the house. Immediately, he reached to the police station. when he reached othe police station,

Maddipati Suresh was already there and he was present outside of the police station. He further admitted that himself drafted the Ex.P1 report.

He did not obtain permission from his higher officials to act as mediator in this case and not mentioned in minutes book. It is admitted by P.W.1 that h has no documentary proof to show that he acted as mediator in this case except his oral evidence in this case.

15. So, on perusing of P.W.1 and P.W.2 evidence I found there is a contradiction about securing of mediator. According to P.W.2 firstly he along with his staff reached to the alleged scene of offence at about 8:00

A.M when he find out the accused with possession of I.D.Arrack and he deputed one constable to secure P.W.1 as mediator. But, here P.W.1 testified that Rangampeta police came to him at 8:00 A.M and requested shim to act as mediator. As per their request he went to police station and from there the Sub-Inspector of police and staff he and the other mediator went to the scene on police jeep. After that they found the accused in the possession of I.D.Arrack. So, there is serious material contradiction with respect to who is alleged mediator in this case.

16. As per the prosecution evidence, the identity particulars of the accused not noted in the Ex.P1 report. In fact accused was caught hold by

P.W.2 that it should be noted in Ex.P1 report, but it was not. Further P.W.1 was also not able to identify the accused as the person who caught hold by police in the possession of I.D.Arrack on 28-10-2020. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 he had not obtained permission from his higher officials to act 6

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

as mediator. There was no document to show that he was really went to the alleged scene of offence along with P.W.2 and acted as mediator. I feel

P.W.1 really went to the alleged scene of offence along with P.W.2 and the proceedings really conducted in his presence and he noted proceedings with hand writing. Any doubt arise from the prosecution evidence, benefit of doubt should always give in favour of the accused. It is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt give to the accused. Accordingly it s my humble opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Material

Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : 25-02-2022 : Muppidi Yerra Bhadrayya,VRO of Vadisaleru village P.W.2 : 15-03-2022 : Ch.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of police. For Defence:-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:- Ex. P1 : 28-10-2020 : Mediator report Ex.P2 : 28-10-2020 : F.I.R Ex. P3 : 31-10-2020 : Chemical analysis report. For Defence:- Nil.

Materi Objects Marked

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi

AJFCM 7

CC 742/2021 , Dated 11-04-2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Ist Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022 CALENDER CASE NO.742/2021 Date of Offence:31-10-2020 Complaint:31-10-2020 Appearance of accused:01-11-2021 Arrest of the accused : 31-10-2020 Released on bail: 31-10-2020 Commencement of trial:25-02-2022 Closure of trial:15-03-2022 Sentence/Order:11-04-2022 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The state, rep by the Station House Officer, Rangampeta police station (Cr.No.188/2020)

Name of the accused:Seva Veerababu, S/o Paddayya, Age: 30 years, Caste: SC Mala, Vadisaleru village of Rangampeta Mandal.

Offence:under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act

Sentence :In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Material Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY//

1

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

-CUM-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jyothsna Devi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE 307/2021

Between

The state, rep by the Station House Officer,

Prohibition and Excise Police station, Peddapuram.

(Cr.No.181/2021) ….. Complainant

and

A1 Arjangi Veerabhadrarao, S/o Sathiyya, Age: 50 years,

Caste: SC Madiga, R.B.Kothuru village of Peddapuram Mandal.

A2 Kota Bhulakshmi, W/o Veerraju, Age: 50 years,

Caste: Settibalija, R.B.Kothuru village of Peddapuram Mandal.

….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P.Balakrishna, Advocate for the A1 and A2and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The A1 and A2 are tried for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 24-03-2020 at about 8:30 A.M, while L.W.1 Sk.M.Subhani, Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Peddapuram along with his staff, including L.W.2

G.V.Maheswararao and L.W.3 V.Ramalaskhmi, Prohibition and Excise constables were patrolling for Prohibition and Excise offences and by the time they reached near Durgamma temple in R.B.Kothuru village limits of

Peddapuram Mandal, found the A1 and A2 under suspicious circumstances 2

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

carrying one bag containing a polythene cover with 10 liters of I.D.Liquor

On enquiry, the A1 and A2 revealed identity and stated that he purchased 10 liters of I.D.Liquor from unknown persons to sell it for profit. On that,

L.W.1 Sk.M.Subhani, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Peddapuram informed the A1 and A2 that it is an offence under the A.P.P Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the bag containing 10 liters of

I.D.Liquor. Further, L.W.1 Sk.M.Subhani, Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Peddapuram had drawn 300 ml of I.D. liquor from the seized quantity for analysis, sealed the sample bottle and the bag and affixed identity slips on the sample bottle and the bag containing the seized quantity vide the special report drafted at the place of offence. L.W.1

Sk.M.Subhani, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Peddapuram handed over the entire CD file to M.R.K.Das, Inspector, SEB station, Peddapuram, who registered the special report as first information report in

Cr.No.181/2020 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

Placing reliance on the Chemical analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, M.R.K.Das, Inspector, SEB station, Peddapuram,, filed the charge sheet against the A1 and A2 for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.P Act.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.P Act against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents are furnished to the A1 and A2 under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code and charge was framed for the offence under 3

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act and read over and explained the contents of charge to the A1 and A2 in Telugu language. After understood, the A1 and A2 denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, besides the material object M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the A1 and A2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the A1 and A2 denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel for the A1 and A2 and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

The P.W.1 testified that on 24-03-2020 at about 08:30 A.M while he was proceeding on raid along with his staff Prohibition and Excise constables and by the time, they reached near Durgamma temple in R.B.Kothuru village limits of Peddapuram Mandal, there they found the A1 and A2 in possession of 10 liters of I.D. Liquor, that P.W.1 himself lifted the sample and drafted the Ex.P1 and obtained the signature of the A1 and A2 on the slips affixed to the M.O.1 sample. Later he handed over the entire record to

P.W.2. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the place where he caught the A1 and A2 are residential Area. He denied the 4

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

suggestions that he did not arrest the A1 and A2 and that no contraband was seized from his possession as he alleged and that the A1 and A2is falsely implicated for statistical purpose and that the A1 and A2 did not make any confession statement.

11. P.W.2 testified that he received entire CD file from P.W.1 and after he registered the crime under Ex.P2 subsequently after receipt of the Ex.P4, expert opinion, he filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination he a denied the suggestion that without proper verification of the CD file he filed charge sheet and foisted false case against the accused.

12. This court relied upon the judgment in Mudavath Mothia Vs State of

A.P delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P, held that “when the Excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the Excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials the confession recorded by the them with the proceedings is in admissible.

Moreover, the panchanama prepared by the Excise officials is hit by Section 25, 27 of Indian evidence act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to any invalidity of the investigation, only goes to the A1 and A2and once the panchanama is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C, and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the A1 and A2has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediator is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C”. Hence, in this case also the independent witnesses are not examined, and a seizure panchanama is 5

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

looked with suspicion and the prosecution case is fatal due to the non examination of the independent witnesses. The benefit of doubt is certainly given in favour of the accused.

13. Admittedly the alleged scene of offence is residential area and the time of alleged offence being at 08:30 A.M, and not odd hours, there appears every possibility of availability of civilians at the alleged scene of offence. But, no independent witness other than the complainant personnel is examined.

14. Further, P.W.1 did not made any effort for securing the presence of mediators, neither the constable examined nor any document is filed to the effect of asking any third party to act as mediator or refusal of that third party to act so. Thus, except the self serving testimony of complainant personnel, no independent witness is examined as to seizure of the alleged contraband from the A1 and A2and lifting of the M.O.1 sample from that alleged contraband. So, the prosecution failed to follow procedure under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Hence, in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of the alleged illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of the accused. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.2 G.V.Maheswararao and L.W.3 V.Ramalaskhmi, Prohibition and Excise constables So, the non examination of L.W.2 G.V.Maheswararao and L.W.3 V.Ramalaskhmi, Prohibition and Excise constables is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. In this case the investigating officer and informant are same persons. The Court do not find it safe to conclude affirmatively on the basis of the self serving testimony of P.W.1 that the A1 and A2 committed the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P. Act. So, the A1 and A2 is entitled for acquittal. As a consequence, the

Court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 6

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

and A2for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P.P

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is determined.

15. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Consequently the A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The

M.O 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the A1 and A2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior civil Judge, Peddapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : 29-11-2021 : Sk.M.Subhani, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector

P.W.2 : 23-03-2022 :M.R.K.Das, , Prohibition and Excise Inspector

For Defence:-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex. P1 : 24-03-2020 : Special report

Ex. P2 : 24-03-2020 : F.I.R

Ex. P3 : 24-03-2020 : Letter of advice

Ex. P4 : 25-06-2020 : Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P5 : 10-10-2020 : Destruction proceedings

For Defence:- Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

A.J.F.C.M.

//TRUE COPY// 7

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

-CUM-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jyothsna Devi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Addl Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE 307/2021

Date of Offence:24-03-2020 Complaint:24-03-2020 Appearance of accused:18-11-2021 Arrest of the A1 and A2 : 24-03-2020 Released on bail: 24-03-2020 Commencement of trial:29-11-2021 Closure of trial:23-03-2022 Sentence/Order:11-04-2022 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The state, rep by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Police station, Peddapuram. (Cr.No.181/2020)

Name of the accused:A1 Arjangi Veerabhadrarao, S/o Sathiyya, Age: 50 years,Caste: SC Madiga, R.B.Kothuru village of Peddapuram Mandal. A2 Kota Bhulakshmi, W/o Veerraju, Age: 50 years, Caste: Settibalija, R.B.Kothuru village of Peddapuram Mandal.

Offence:under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Plea of the A1 and A2: Not guilty.

Finding: The A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Sentence :In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. Consequently the A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The M.O 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the A1 and A2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior civil Judge, Peddapuram Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY// 8

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

9

CC 307/2021, dated 11-04-2022

1

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

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

PEDDAPURAM::

PRESENT: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

CALENDER CASE NO.428/2018

Between

The state, rep by the Station House Officer,

Prohibition and Excise station, Peddapuram.

(Cr.No.318/2017) ….. Complainant

and

Guthula Jageswararao @ Jagadeesh,

S/o Govindu, Age: 52 years,

Caste: Settibalija,

R/o Mukundavaram village,

Rangampeta Mandal. ….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Ch.K.Durgarao,

Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 30-08- 2017 at about 12:10 P.M, while L.W.3 P.N.Subrahmanyam, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Peddapuram along with his staff, including

L.W.4 S.Maheswararao, Prohibition and Excise Head constable and two mediators L.W.1 R.Apparao, L.W.2 V.Ramnbabu were patrolling for Prohibition and Excise offences and by the time they reached near

Lakshmi Ganapathi temple limits of Vadisaleru villageo f Rangampeta

Mandal, there they found the accused under suspicious condition with one gunny bag, one examination the bag contains 2 polythene covers each coving containing 10 liters of I.D.Liquor total 20 liters of I.D.

2

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

Liquor, the accused revealed his identity. On that, L.W.3

P.N.Subrahmanyam, Prohibition and Excise Sub-, informed the accused that it is an offence under the A.P.P Act and arrested the accused, besides seizing the 20 liters of I.D. Liquor a drawn 300 ml of

I.D. liquor into one clean bottle for analysis purpose as sample, sealed the sample bottled and the gunny bag, affixed identity slips over them and seized entire property under cover of mediators report drafted in the place of offence.

On the basis of the mediators report, L.W.3

P.N.Subrahmanyam Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Peddapuram, registered as first information report in Cr.No.318/2017 and forwarded the sample for chemical analysis to Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada along with letter of advice through the Assistant

Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kakinada. The chemical examiner analyzed sample and opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

The remaining property was destroyed on 25-10-2017 as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Kakinada Rc.No.B2/139/2016 dated 11-09-2017. Placing reliance on the Chemical analysis report and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.3 P.N.Subrahmanyam, Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Peddapuram, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.P Act.

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

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

5. Subsequently, the accused was examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code and charge was framed for the offence under

Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act and read over and explained the contents of charge to the accused in Telugu language. After understood, the accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, besides the material object M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the counsel for the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.P Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point for determination:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1.

11. P.W.1 categorically deposed that on 30-08-2017 at about 12:00

P.M, while he was present at ADB road, Peddapuram, by that time

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector called him over phone and asked him to come to police station and accordingly he went to ADB road, near Laskhmi Gangapathi Vinayaka temple, VAdisaleru village, there one person carrying a gunny bag on seeing the police he run away by 4

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

leaving the same. L.W.3 P.N.Subrahmanyam, Prohibition and Excise

Sub-Inspector opened that bag in his presence and found 20 liters of

I.D.Liquor and he drafted Ex.P1 mediators nama report and it was marked as Ex.P1 through P.W.1. In the cross-examination P.W.1 testified as he has not received written summons from the Station

House officer to act as mediator and he was informed over phone. It was also admitted by P.W.1 that the alleged contraband was not measured.

12. P.W.2 is the other mediator testified as on 30-08-2017 at about after noon hours, Excise police called him to come to police station, then he went to police station and police asked him to put his signature on drafted paper. But he did not gone through those papers. When the witness asked to identify his signature on Ex.P1, then the witness identified his signature and stated that he does not know the contents therein.

13. P.W.3 is alleged investigating officer testified as 30-08-2017 at about 12:10 noon, he has secured P.Was.1 and 2 and proceeded to

Vinayaka temple in Vadlamuru village there he found one person was carrying a bag and on seeing them, he escaped from there by leaving that bag. While they opened that bag, it contains two polythene covers containing 20 liters of I.D.arrack. P.W.3 further testified that he identified escaped person who is previous offender by name

Guthula Jagadeswararao and on that the mediator nama report was got drafted and seized two polythene covers containing 20 liters of

I.D.Arrack. He took 300 ml. I.D. Liquor as sample for analysis from the seized quantity. After that they reached to police station and registered the mediators report as a case in Cr.No.18/2017 for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1997. After 5

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

that accused surrendered voluntarily before the Honourable Court and obtained bail. After he sent letter advice along with the sample for analysis purpose to analyzer. On 22-11-2018 he received the analysis report opined that the distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that he did not mention on the Ex.P3 that his staff S.Maheswararao accompanied him to go to the scene of offence and the names and address of the alleged mediator not noted in Ex.P3 report. It was also admitted by

P.W.3 that physical features of the accused not noted in Ex.P3. P.W.3 further admitted that alleged contraband was not measured by them, and there was a delay of 20 days to send the sample for analysis purpose after the seizure but the delay was not mentioned in the charge sheet.

15. The learned counsel for the accused suggested that the accused is a handicapped person and he cannot move freely and hence it is a false statement that he was escaped from their clutches with contraband. It is a fact that physical features of accused appearing to be handicapped person. As per the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 3 the accused escaped from their clutches falsely. According to P.W.3 accused voluntarily surrendered before this court and obtained bail from Honourable Court. Only for the reason of surrender, alleged accused before court, it should not presume that the accused was the culprit and who possessed the alleged contraband of I.D.arrack.

Since no iota of evidence except the oral evidence of Investigating officer that the accused was the person who possessed the alleged contraband and illegally transporting the same for the purpose of 6

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

selling is not sufficient to prove against the accused. In the above circumstances I feel prosecution has failed to prove the offence under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Material

Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi,

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : 07-01-2020 : R.Apparao P.W.2 : 16-03-2022 : P.N.Subrahmanyam, Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector P.W.3 : 16-03-2022 : S.Maheswararao, Prohibition and Excise Head constable. For Defence:-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:- Ex. P1 : 30-08-2017 :Signature of P.W.1 on Mediators report Ex. P2 : 30-08-2017 :Signature of P.W.2 on mediators report Ex. P3 : 30-08-2017 : Mediator report Ex.P4 : 30-08-2017 : F.I.R Ex. P5 : 30-08-2017 :Letter of advice Ex. P6 : 22-11-2017 : Chemical analysis report. For Defence:- Nil.

Materi Objects Marked

M.O.1 : Sample bottle Sd/- T.Jyothsna devi,

AJFCM 7

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi, Ist Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022 CALENDER CASE NO.428/2018 Date of Offence:30-08-2017 Complaint:30-08-2017 Appearance of accused:16-10-2018 Arrest of the accused : 14-09-2017 Released on bail: 14-09-2017 Commencement of trial:07-01-2020 Closure of trial:16-03-2022 Sentence/Order:11-04-2022 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The state, rep by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Police station,Peddapuram.(Cr.No.318/2017)

Name of the accused:Guthula Jageswararao @ Jagadeesh, S/o Govindu, Age: 52 years, Caste: Settibalija, R/o Mukundavaram village, Rangampeta Mandal.

Offence:under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act

Sentence :In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act and are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Material Objects M.O.1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- T.Jyothsna Devi

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY// 8

CC 428/2018, Dated 11-04-2022

2022

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

CUM- ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Smt. T.Jyothsna Devi,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Peddapuram. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

C.C.No.97/2021

Between:

Between

State : Sub-Inspector of police,

Rangampeta Police Station. (Cr.No.227/2019)

….. Complainant

And.

A1 Jada Ravi Kumar, S/o Sathibabu, Age: 21 years,

Caste: Yadava, Sathireddypeta, Peddapuram.

A2. Boddu Naga Durga Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana,

Age: 25 years, Caste :Settibalija,

Sathireddy Peta, Peddapuram

A3 Badugu Ajay Kumar @ Ajay, S/o Srinivas,

Age: 19 years, Caste: mala,

Kattamuru village of Peddapuram Mandal.

(The case against A2 and A3 disposed on 04-03-2022 and by that time A1 is separated and numbered as CC 97/2021 since

NBW is pending against him since long time.)

This case having come up for Examination before me in the presence of Sri D.Nagaraju, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri M.Rambabu, Legal Aid counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Police Station, has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 alleging the offence under

Section 379 IPC in Cr.No.136/2014.

2. This case is pending before this court since long time due to non examination of NBW against A1. This court taking cognizance on 01-08- 2015 for the offence under Sections 379 IPC or 411 IPC in CC 412/2015.

3. On 29-01-2021 NBW has been issued against A1, since then NBW is not executed against A1 and assigned new CC 97/2021. Memo filed 2022 by the learned APP submitted that the case against A2 and A3 are acquitted on 04-03-2022 by the Honourable A.J.F.C.M court,

Peddapuram and the case against the A1 was separate and assigned new CC No.97/2021 since NBW is pending against A1 since long time and he also further submitted that due to enquiries of police there is no possibility to trace of the accused in nearest future and to continue the case against A1 and there no useful propose will be served and mere wasting of valuable time of the Honourable Court and public money.

The learned APP submitted the decision in Janyavula Ramabbu Vs State represented by Inspector of police Jangareddigudem Police station,

West Godvari District in Crl. Petition 201 of 1992, at Honourable High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and basing upon the decision in the above case, the petition is allowed. The learned APP prayed this court to pleased to close the case against A1 basing on the above decision in the interest of justice. In the light of above circumstances and a memo filed by the learned APP and the above principles laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court and Honourable High Court, this court

inclined to NBW against A1 is canceled. Police directed to return the un- executed bond. Bail bonds if any remained stands canceled.

Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate-cum- Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

No documents are marked on either side.

A.J.F.C.M