T Jyothsna Devi

CC 411/16-1-IAJFCM, Knl

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KURNOOL.

Present:Ms. G. Aparna, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

C.C.No.411/2016

Between :

State Rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kurnool IV Town Police Station...Complainant.

Vs.

1. Yagayagari Janaki Ram, working as A.P. Constable No.2870 of DAR, Kurnool, resident of Seetharam nagar, near Pump House, Kurnool.

2. Yagayagari Giddamma, W/o Y. Narayana, R/o Seetharam nagar, near Pump House, Kurnool.

3. Yagayagari Narayana, R/o Seetharam nagar, near Pump house, Kurnool.

4. Yagayagari Swamy Naidu, working as A.P.S.P. Head Constable in APSP 2nd Battalion, Kurnool. Note: 1)Case against A1 was split up and numbered as C.C.257/2024.

2)Case against A2 was abated on 12.10.2021.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 10.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri B. Murali,

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

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of dowry harassment by demanding additional dowry by husband and his relatives against a married woman.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

The de-facto complainant Yagayagari Kaseswari/LW1 fell in love with

Y. Janaki Ram/A1 and on 16.10.1998 she got married A1 in Registrar Office,

Cumbam, Prakasam District. During their wedlock they were blessed with a male child and now he is studying IV class in Kesava Reddy School, Kurnool.

Her husband parents are having three sons and a daughter. After marriage, she lived happily for a period of two years with her husband and in-laws. During the year 2000, her husband/A1 and her in-laws demanded her to bring dowry from her parents and pressured her to cooperate with them to perform the marriage of

CC 411/16-2-IAJFCM, Knl

her husband with another woman of their caste. They used to harass her physically and mentally confining her in a bed room without providing food to her.

They only allowed her to move in the house whenever her relatives or neighbours visited their house. After marriage, her husband and in-laws used to tell her sweet words and sold away her 13 tulas of gold black beads chain, 2 ½ tulas of gold jumikis, matis, two gold rings which were presented by her parents.

Her husband is working as A.R. Constable No.2870 in DAR, Kurnool and during the year 2007, her husband went to Vijayawada city for police sports meet, where he developed friendship with one Rajya Lakshmi by apprising her falsely that he is un-married and working as S.I. of Police in Police Department and without her knowledge, her husband married said Rajya Lakshmi in the presence of elders. Later, they came to know about the marriage and cheating of her husband, said Rajya Lakshmi gave a report with Krishna Lanks Police where a criminal case has been registered against her husband which is pending trial.

(i)It is further alleged that her husband during his stay at A4’s house developed illegal intimacy with one Pushpa Latha of same quarters. On knowing the same, when she questioned her in-law and brother-in-law for which they stated all of her co-sisters brought dowry but she had not brought. Keeping that, her husband harassed her and they also supported her husband. When her mother died at Porumamidi palli village, the accused allowed her to attend funerals on 24.06.2014 by stating that “come to home with dowry from her parents otherwise end your life there itself”. Later, she informed the same to her husband, but he also supported his parents by saying that “Do what they say, otherwise her death will be in their hands as in previous luckily she escaped from the plans of killing by gas and kerosene”. Later, due to their un-bearable harassment, she informed the same to her parents, but they consoled her and advised to adjust with her husband and in-laws and that she returned to her husband’s house on 09.07.2014 to lead marital life. Again they started harassing by confining her in a room and she was leading miserable life for the sake of her only son by bearing the harassment. On 06.08.2014, her husband, in-law and brother-in-law picked up quarrel with her and necked out her from their house.

(ii) Basing on the report of LW1, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Kurnool IV town PS/LW9 registered a case in Cr.No.303/2014 under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC, Sec.4 of D.P. Act and took up investigation. During the course of

CC 411/16-3-IAJFCM, Knl

investigation, LW9 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. During the course of further investigation, S.I. of Police/LW10 arrested A1 on 02.03.2015 and freed him on bail. On 27.06.2015, A2 to A4 were arrested by S.I. of

Police/LW11 and freed them on police bail. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4.

03.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/ Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC, Sec.4 of D.P. Act against A1 to A4. On appearance of the accused

before this court, the copies of documents is furnished to the accused as

contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence u/s.498-A r/w 34 IPC are framed against them. The substance of the accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.The police have filed Death Certificate of A2 and hence the case against A2 was abated on 24.02.2020. In the absence of A1 for several adjourn- ments, the Court had issued NBW against A1, and subsequently, the SHO filed report stating that in near future, he cannot execute NBW against A1 and hence to the interest of other accused, this Court split up the case against A1. Now the case is against A3 and A4 only.

06.In order to prove the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A3 and A4 are examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution wit- nesses is read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied the same and examined DW1 on their behalf.

08.Heard arguments of both sides.

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

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A3 and A4 for

the offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, beyond the reasonable doubts?

CC 411/16-4-IAJFCM, Knl

Point:

10.In order to establish their case against accused, prosecution had examined five witnesses and got Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. PW1 is defacto complainant, PW2 is sister of PW1, Pws 3 to 5 are investigating officers.

Whereas, Ex.P1 is the complaint given by the PW1, and Ex.P2 is FIR.

11.PW1 is the victim and defacto complainant. She deposed that on 16.10.1998 her marriage was performed with A1 at Cumbam, Prakasam District and it is a love marriage and was registered in Registrar Office. Her marriage was accepted her elders and they performed their marriage, at the time of marriage her parents presented 13 tulas of gold ornaments to her. During their wedlock they blessed with one son and they lived happily for two years. Thereafter, A1 to

A4 harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding of additional dowry from her and their intention was to get marriage to A1 as their wish and A1 to A4 used to beat her and used to lock inside of the room. She further testified that her parents have no capacity to fulfil the demand of accused and she expressed the same to the accused. In the year 2007 her husband/A1 was working as A.R.

Constable and he is a sport person and he went to sport meet in Vijayawada, in that sport meet A1 got acquaintance with one Garigapati Raja Lakshmi and he believed her as he is working as S.I and also stated false statement that he was unmarried. She further testified that A1 married that Garigapati Raja Lakshmi

before elders. Later on that Garagapati Lakshmi enquired about A1 and she

came to know that he married her as a first wife and PW1 is alive and that

Garigapati Lakshmi filed a case before Krishna Lanka P.S against A1. A1 also got illegal intimacy with one Pushpalatha wife of N.Nagaswamy Naidu. Since that

Pushplatha is a rich women then A1 to A4 are colluded with each other to continue illegal intimacy with that Pushpalatha.

12.PW1 further testified that when she asked A1 to A4 about that acts they stated she had not brought dowry and her co sisters brought dowry and as such A1 to A4 harassed her for want of dowry, but she kept quite to look after her son. Then in the month of June 2014, her mother died due to ill health but A1 to

A4 did not allow her to see her mother. On the next day they allowed PW1 to see her mother dead body on a condition to conduct panchayath and to bring dowry amount from her elders. At that time, A1 was in bando busth duty at Chippagiri, she informed him over phone about her mother’s death and A1 threatened her

CC 411/16-5-IAJFCM, Knl

that he will kill her if she did not get dowry amount from her elders and stated he will not allow into house if she failed to get dowry amount from her elders.

Previously, A1 to A4 tried to kill PW1 by pouring kerosene upon her and lit out.

But she escaped from that attempt. She informed to her elders about the harassment of A1 to A4 and their demand of dowry but her elders convinced PW1 and send her to matrimonial home. Pw1 further testified that on 09.07.2014, she came to her matrimonial home but A1 to A4 never stopped to harass PW1 for demanding of additional dowry and they used to trouble her by quarrelling with her for small issues. At last on 06.08.2014, she was necked out from the accused house and then I lodged complaint against A1 to A4 in IV Town P.S on 20.08.2014. Ex.P1 is her complaint.

13.In the cross examination, PW1 testified that her marriage was love marriage and same was accepted by either parents. After her marriage, she joined with A1 in S.A.P Camp, Kurnool in her in-laws house and later A1 shifted her to Seetharama Nagar, Kurnool. She later stated that she joined with A1 in

APSP Camp for a few days and immediately A1 shifted his family to Seetharama

Nagar. She denied that her mother not paid any dowry amount to the accused since it is a love marriage. She further testified that A1 sold out 16 tulas of gold and not returned back to her and she had no receipts for the purchase of that gold. PW1 denied the suggestion that A1 proposed to take care of his old aged parents by keeping them in their house, but she did not accepted his proposal.

PW1 admitted that she did not submit any receipt with respect to gold ornaments given to accused. PW1 further admitted that she did not lodge complaint immediately after the incident when her parents-in-law tried to kill her by pouring kerosene and lit off fire. She further admitted that she attended the marriage of daughter of her brother-in-law/A4 but she does not remember the date. PW1 denied the suggestion that this false case was foisted against A3 and A4 as they advised her to take care of A1 and family. She further testified that her son is studying Degree final year in CEC Group in Balasiva College and her son is in the house of A4. PW1 admitted that A1 brought up her son after she left the matrimonial house. She testified that her father-in-law is staying with A4 and he is bearing the educational expenses of her son. she further stated that A1 to A4 not allowed me into their house and hence she did not take her son with her.

CC 411/16-6-IAJFCM, Knl

14.The sister of PW1 was examined as PW2. She testified that on 16.10.1998 her elder sister PW.1’s marriage was performed with A1 at

Porumamilla Palle of Prakasam District. At the time of marriage of PW1, her parents gave 16 tulas of gold to the accused towards dowry and their marriage was performed in Registrar’s office. PW1 lived happily with A1 for 2 years and thereafter PW1 begotten male child. Then A1 developed illegal intimacy with one

Pushpalatha and started harassment against PW1. In the year 2007, A1 second marriage was performed with one Rajyalakshmi in the presence of both side elders at Vijayawada. After one year of A1’s second marriage and on knowing the same Rajya Lakshmi made complaint against accused. The news was telecasted in Television and published news papers. They came to know about the same and asked A1 about his second marriage but he arrogantly replied that he will marry number of marriages. During her sister PW1’s stay with A1, he used to harass her sister for demanding of additional dowry. Panchayat was held

before relatives and elders but A1 denied all those facts. They informed about ill

health of her mother to PW1, but A1 not allowed PW1 to come to their house and later after the death of her mother they again informed them. She further testified that A1 accepted to go to PW1 to her house on condition to get additional dowry amount, if she will not obey that condition A1 threatened her with dire consequences which occurred earlier against PW1. PW1 returned to her matrimonial house after their mother’s last rites. Then A1 continued harassment against PW1 as she did not get additional dowry and sold the gold ornaments of

PW1 and spent for his expenses. In the month of August 2014, A1 necked PW1 out from her in-laws house as she did not get additional dowry amount as they demanded. On 20.08.2014, PW1 lodged complaint against accused.

15.In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that for five years PW1 and

A1 lived happily. She denied the suggestion that PW1 is suspicious nature and fickle nature. PW2 admitted that they did not lodge complaint when A1 tried to kill

PW1 with gas and kerosence. PW2 further admitted that the son of PW1 at present staying along with A4 and under his care. PW2 denied the suggestion that due to anger against A1, the other family members were also falsely implicated by her in this case.

16.PWs 3 to 5 are the investigating officers in this case. Among them,

PW3 deposed that on 20.08.2014 at 9 P.M., while he was present in the Police

CC 411/16-7-IAJFCM, Knl

station, he received a typed complaint through Tappal from S.P. office, Kurnool with a direction to register the case. Basing on the same, he registered the same as in Cr.No.303/2014 for the offence U/s.498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P. Act and issued Ex.P2is FIR. On 21.08.2014, he secured the presence of

PW1 and LW2/K.Pedda Subbaiah and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

Then he visited the scene of offence situated at Seetharam nagar, Kurnool, secured the presence of PW2, and LWs 4 to 8 examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Later he handed over the C.D. file to his successor

LW10/Naga Tulasi Prasad for further investigation in this case. In his cross examination, PW3 admitted that PW1 did not visit the police station to lodge complaint prior to the directions of S.P., Kurnool. PW3 did not draw the rough sketch of this case. PW3 further admitted that PW1 did not submit any proof to show that she purchased 13 tulas of gold.

17.PW4 speaks about receiving of CD file from PW3 for further investigation in this case and issuance of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1. In his cross examination he testified that he did not examine any of the witnesses in this case and this case was investigated by three investigating officers. PW4 admitted that A4 is duty bound office in his investigation. PW4 further admitted that in the complaint it was mentioned that first two years A1 looked after PW1 well. It is further admitted that PW1 not submitted any receipts or proof with respect to the gold. A1 and his parents were staying separately.

18.PW5 who is one of the investigation officers deposed about receiving of C.D. file from PW4 for further investigation, issuance of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A2 to A4 and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. In his cross examination, PW5 testified that he did not examine any of the witness in this case and he cannot tell when accused tried to kill PW1 once with kerosene and another time by gas. PW5 cannot say how many tulas of gold was taken away from PW1 and sold away the same as he mentioned in the charge sheet and complaint. PW5 further admitted that except filing charge sheet, he did not conduct any investigation in this case.

19.On behalf of the accused, son of A1 was examined as DW1. He deposed that his mother Kaseswari and father Janakiram’s marriage is love marriage. When he was studying 7th class her mother and father were

CC 411/16-8-IAJFCM, Knl

separated. His father informed him when he returned from school that his mother left the house because of quarrel took place in between them, but he does not know what was the reasons of their quarrel since he was small and his mother did not turn up to their house later. Then onwards he and his father were staying together separately up to his 10th class and thereafter his father left him in his senior paternal uncle’s house i.e., A4 and went away. He further deposed that A4 is taking care of him from then onwards. He studied Degree and temporarily he is doing job in a private sector. A4 and his family members looking after him well.

His mother occasionally calls to him. His grand parents and senior paternal uncle and his family members and his junior paternal uncle and his family members take care of him well. He further deposed that by the time of his mother staying with his father, A2 to A4 never visited his house and intervened their family affairs, and his parents separated of their own without intervention of any family member.

A4 is bearing his educational expenses and other expenses. DW1 further deposed that A4 is working in Police Department as A.S.I.

20.In his cross examination, DW1 testified that he does not know the reason for disputes in between his parents. DW1 denied the suggestion that A1 to A4 used to harass PW1 that she did not brought dowry since their marriage is love marriage and that they also harassed her both physically and mentally. He further denied the suggestion that he deposed the evidence at the instance of A4 since he brought him up.

21.On perusing the evidence of PW1 who is victim cum defacto complainant in this case and who is alleged to be harassed in the hands of A1 to

A4, testified in her evidence that her marriage was performed with A1 and said marriage was love marriage and that after her marriage, A1 to A4 harassed her physically and mentally and demanded for additional dowry and that she came to know about her husband illegal relationship with one Pushpalatha and marriage with Garigapati Lakshmi and on questioning that acts A1 to A4 stated she did not bring dowry and as such A1 to A4 harassed for want of dowry and they allowed to see her mother on her death in the year 2014 on condition she shall bring dowry and finally necked her out from the matrimonial house. Whereas, on perusal of evidence of PW2 who is sister of PW1, she deposed that A1 harassed her by demanding additional dowry and A1 allowed to see the dead body of her mother on condition that she shall bring additional dowry and A1 necked PW1 out from

CC 411/16-9-IAJFCM, Knl

his house for not bringing additional dowry. But, there is no whisper about the alleged harassment and demand of dowry by A2 to A4 against PW1. And also from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it appears that after few days of marriage

PW1 and A1 set up separate family. More over DW1 who is son of PW1deposed that by the time of his mother staying with his father, A2 to A4 never visited his house and intervened their family affairs, and his parents separated of their own without intervention of any family member. PW1 stated in her evidence that A1 to

A4 tried to kill her by pouring kerosene and lit fire, but in her cross examination, she admitted that she did not lodge complaint immediately after the incident when her parents-in-law tried to kill her by pouring kerosene and lit off fire. PW2 also admitted the same in her cross examination. In this aspect, the investigating officer/PW3 also admitted in his cross examination that PW1 did not visit the police station to lodge complaint prior to the directions of S.P., Kurnool. If really, the accused tried to kill her by pouring kerosene, they ought to have file complaint

before police about the acts done by the accused, but in this case, there is no

such incident happened. It appears from the evidence of PW1 that she had not stated how much additional dowry the accused had demanded except merely stating that the accused demanded additional dowry. The prosecution has also not examined other listed witnesses who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence of offence and etc., facts. So, there is a cloud in the mind of this

Court about harassment of PW1 by A3 and A4 and demanding of dowry by A3 and A4,they tried to kill PW1 by pouring kerosene, as stated by PW1.

22.PW1 testified in her chief examination that at time of marriage her parents presented 13 tulas of gold ornaments to her. In her cross examination she testified that A1 sold out her 16 tulas of gold ornaments which were presented by her parents and not returned the same. PW2 in her chief examination stated that her parents had presented 16 tulas of gold to the accused towards dowry and the same was sold by A1 and spent for his expenses. Here it appears that there is no corroboration between PW1 and PW2 as to how many tulas gold was presented and to whom it was presented. And it also clear from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 that A3 and A4 are no way concerned with that gold. And moreover, in this aspect, PW1 admitted in her cross examination that she had submitted any receipts for the purchase of that gold. The investigating officers/A3 and A4 also testified that PW1 did not submit any proof to show that she purchased 13 tulas of gold. In this aspect also, the

CC 411/16-10-IAJFCM, Knl

evidence of PW1 is not believable and trustworthy. Hence, this Court is of considered view that inspite of examination of PW1 to PW5 and marking of Ex.P1 and P2, prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences alleged against A3 and A4.

23.In the result, A3 and A4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against A2 stood abated.

Typed directly to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: Y. KasheswarammaDW1: Y. Sucharith Naidu PW2: Lakshmi Devi PW3: M. Manjunatha Reddy, Inspector of Police PW4: P. Tulasi Naga Pasad, SI of Police PW5: M. Nagalakshmaiah, Retd. SI of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. Ex.P2: FIR.

For Accused:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:For Accused: -Nil-

Sd/-G.Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

CC 411/16-11-IAJFCM, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KURNOOL

Calendar Case No.411/2016

Date of offence.:08.05.2020

Date of complaint.:08.05.2020

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date of release on bail : --

Date of commencement of trial.:21.11.2022

Date of close of trial.:11.07.2024

Date of sentence or order.:04.04.2025

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town P.S. S.Name ofFather’sReligionOccup-ResidenceAge Noaccusedname/ation Husband Name Yagayagari 1 Constable Kurnool Janaki Ram Yagayagari Y. 2 Kurnool GiddammaNarayana Yagayagari 3 Kurnool Narayana Yagayagari Head Con- 4 Kurnool Swamy Naidustable Note: 1)Case against A1 was split up and numbered as C.C.257/2024.

2)Case against A2 was abated on 12.10.2021. Offence: This is a case of dowry harassment by demanding

additional dowry by husband and his relatives against a

married woman.

Section of Law: 498-A r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, A3 and A4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against A2 stood abated.

Sd/-G.Aparna,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Prl. Asst. Sessions

Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-Smt.M.Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 19th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.1348/2018

State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle. … Complainant -Versus- Eldho. N.P., age 47 years, S/o. Niravathu Kandathil Poulose, of Niravathi Kandathil (House) Moolankavu (Post), S.Bathiry village, Wayanad District, Kerala State- Pin No: 673592. Cell No: 9447312478. Driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206.… Accused

Boya Shankar, age 47 years, s/o Rangaiah, Peddatekur village, Kallur Mandal. Rider of bullock cart and Two bulls.… Deceased

This case came before me on 12-02-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.C.Lokeswaraiayh, Advocate for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.33/2018 for the offences U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a)

(b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

i. The deceased Boya Shankar was working in Toddy shop which was run by Beesanna Goud of Peddatekur village. He used to transport the Toddy from the Palm trees to Toddy shop in Peddatekur village by his two bullock cart in a barrel in the early morning of every day. As usual on 20.03.2018 at 06.30 hours, the deceased left home by raiding his two bullock cart by carrying empty barrel to go to Palm trees situated in the limits of Chinnatekur village. On the way on NH- 2 44 Kurnool – Dhone road after crossing "Siva Prasad Petro fuel H.P. Petrol

Bunk", when the bullock cart reached near the fields of P.Pullareddy, at about 0715 hours, the accused driver Edho of Kerala State drove his orange fruits loaded lorry bearing No.KA 55- 7206 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Kurnool side to Dhone side and dashed on the back of Two bullocks cart which was raiding by the deceased, on that the deceased fell down from the bullock cart and one bull was detached from the the cart and another bull and cart was dragged about 50 feet distance from the spot due to high speed of crime vehicle. Resulting which the deceased was died on the spot with severe bleeding head injury, two bulls also died on the spot with injuries and the bullock cart was damaged and struck up under the crime vehicle.

LW-1 & LW-5 who were on the way to their fields were witnessed the accident and the LW-5 came to know the name of the accused while he caught hold him during his escaping from the scene and the LW-1 went to Ulindakonda PS and preferred report.

ii. Basing on the written report of LW.1, SI, Ulindakonda PS (LW-14) registered a case in Cr.No.33/2018 U/sec.304-A, 429 IPC of Ulindakonda PS on 20.03.2018 at 0745 hours and submitted FIRS to the concerned officers on the same day. Subsequently LW-15 took up further investigation. On 20.03.2018 LW- 15 visited the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and two bulls from 0830 hours to 10.30 hours in the presence of kith & kin, eye- witnesses i.e., LW-1 to LW-5 and Panchyathdars i.e. LW-7 to LW-9, during the inquest LW-15 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 to LW-5. During inquest at the scene of offence LW-15 seized the crime vehicle i.e., KA55-7206 at the scene of offence. On 23.03.2018 LW-6 appeared before the LW-15, disclosed the details of the accused driver and produced the accused and records of crime vehicle. LW-15 examined the accused with the help of LW-6 in translation of language Malayalam to Telugu and after confirming him as accused driver, LW- 15 arrested the accused driver on 23.03.2018 at 1830 hours and released on bail.

LW-10 is the Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical

College, held autopsy over the dead body of deceased vide PM No: 251/2018 3

dated: 20.03.2018 and opined that the cause of death of deceased due to

"MULTIPLE INJURIES".

iii. LW-11 is the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Govt., Veterinary

Dispensary, Chinnatekur village, Kallur mandal, conducted autopsy over the corpse of two bulls at the scene of offence and issued PM reports vide in PM

No:04/2018 & 05/2018 dated: 20.03.2018 and opined that "bulls died due to multiple fractures & internal bleeding leads to Asphyxia, coma & death". LW-12 is the MVI, Kurnool, inspected the crime vehicle i.e., Innova bearing No: KA 55 7206 opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in this accident".

3. The offence was taken cognizance U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

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

5.Accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable

U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act putting forth the substance of the accusations made against him for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got Exs.P1 to P12 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs-1 to 5, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

7. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the guilt. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

4

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10. It is the case of prosecution that on 20.03.2018 at 7.15 hours, on NH-44

Kurnool – Dhone road after crossing "Siva Prasad Petro fuel H.P. Petrol Bunk" due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206 and dashed on the back of Two bullocks cart which was raiding by the deceased

Boya Shankar on that the deceased fell down from the bullock cart and one bull was detached from the the cart and another bull and cart was dragged about 50 feet distance. As a result, the deceased as well as 2-bulls sustained injuries and died on the spot.

11. The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused and hence the question of negligent act of accused does not arise. Further, the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW5-Investigating Officer, is only routine course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.The evidence of PW1 is that at about 5 years ago, while he was going to his fields on motor cycle, he have witnessed the accident at Tadakanpalli road at 7.00 am., one fully loaded lorry hit the bullock cart. The deceased Shankaraiah who was riding the bullock cart was died on the spot with injuries and two axes were also died. The crime crime vehicle went to some distance and stopped the 5 crime vehicle i.e., Lorry and the driver of lorry ran away from the scene of offence by leaving the lorry there itself. He cannot say the crime vehicle, lorry bearing number and name of the driver. If shown to him, he can identify the driver of crime vehicle. He identified the signature on the written report. Ex.P1 is the signature on the report and he do not know the contents written in the report.

Police obtained his signature at the scene of offence. Police examined him.

14.The evidence of PW2 is that at about 6 years ago, her deceased husband was died in a road incident. She was present in her home. She came to know the information about the accident through PW1 and LW5 over a phone call.

Immediately, she along with her sons went to the scene of offence. At the scene of offence her deceased husband and two oxes died due to injuries. She observed crime vehicle at scene of offence but she cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. She did not enquire about the manner of the accident and driver of the crime vehicle. Police did not examine her.

15.The evidence of PW3 is that at about 5 years ago, his deceased father was died in a road incident. At the time of accident, he was present in his fields. He came to know the information about the accident through PW1 and LW5 over a phone call. Immediately, he along with his mother and brother went to the scene of offence. At the scene of offence his deceased father and two oxes died due to injuries. He observed crime vehicle at scene of offence but he cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. He did not enquire about the manner of the accident and driver of the crime vehicle. Police did not examine him.

16.The evidence of PW4 is that at about 5 years ago, while he was going to his fields at 6.00 am, he have not witnessed the accident. Immediately, after the accident, he went to the scene of offence. One lorry hit the bullock cart and caused death to Sankaraiah and two oxes. He cannot say the number of the crime vehicle and driver of the lorry was ran away from the scene of offence by leaving his lorry. He cannot identify the driver of the lorry. Police examine him.

6

17. The evidence of PW5 is that on 20-03-2018 at about 7.45 a.m., while LW- 14 present Ulindakonda PS, PW-1 came to the police station and presented written report which is marked as Ex.P-6. Basing upon Ex.P-6 LW-14 registered a case in Cr.No.304 (A), 429 IPC and forwarded to the original FIR to the Hon’ble

Court and copies to all concerned officers. Ex.P-7 is the FIR and submitted case file to me. After verifying investigation done by LW-14, he continued investigation in this case. On the same day, he visited scene of offence situated at NH-44 in between Peddatekur to Chinnatekur. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Boya Shankar in the presence of LWs-7 to 9 and prepared inquest report. Ex.P-8 is the inquest report. He found dead bodies of two bulls. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P-9 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and he secured the presence of PWs-1 to 4 and LW-4 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to LW-10 for the purpose of autopsy and also prepared requisition to LW-11 who is government veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Chinnatekur to conduct PME over the dead bodies of two bulls. LW-11 conducted Postmortem over the dead bodies of two bulls and issued PME report to that extent. Ex.P-10 is the PME report of two bulls. At scene of offence he secured crime vehicle bearing No.KA55-7206. On the same day he made a request to LW-12 who is MVI, Kurnool to conduct vehicle inspection accordingly he came to police station and inspected crime vehicle bearing No.KA55-7206 and issued MVI report. Ex.P-11 is the MVI report.

Later, during the course of investigation LW-6 brought the accused to Kurnool

Rural PS after verifying identity particulars of accused, he served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on station bail. Later, he forwarded case file to LW-16 inspector of police, Kurnool Rural Circle as he have been transferred from the said place. Later, LW-16 received PME report from LW-10.

Ex.P-12 is the PME report. After verification of his investigation and found it is on correct lines. LW-16 filed charge sheet against accused.

During cross examination of PW-5, nothing is elicited against the

Accused 1 and 2 except suggestions.

7

18. PW1, who is eye witness and PWs.2 to 4 are blood relatives of deceased, did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars as to the manner of incident and also the identity of the accused as driver of crime vehicle, at the time of accident and they turned hostile. Though the learned Assistant

Public prosecutor cross-examined PWs-1 to 4 with the permission of the Court as they resiled from their earlier statements nothing has been elicited to prove that, the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident and they witnessed the alleged incident. No purpose have been served by the prosecution except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs-1 to 4 as Exs.P2 to

P5.

19.Therefore, the identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle on the date of incident is not established by the prosecution from any of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of specific identification of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

20.Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.304-A

IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E) Knl. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (SMC) Knl.

8

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: K. Ramachandrudu-None- PW2: Boya Lingamma PW3: Boya Ramudu PW4: Boya Menuga Nagaraju PW5: P.Nagaraju Yadav

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Written report Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Inquest report Ex.P9: Rough Sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.10: PME report of two bulls Ex.P.11: MVI Report Ex.P.12: PME Report

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

SPL.JMFC (P&E) KNL.

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL //True copy//

SPL. JMFC (P&E) KNL.

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL 9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1348/2018

1. Date of Offence: 20-03-2018

2. Date of Complaint or report: 20-03-2018

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 23-03-2018

4. Date of release of the accused : 23-03-2018

5. Date of commencement of trial: 28-11-2023

6. Date of close of trial: 07-01-2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 19-02-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle, in Crime No.33/2018. Eldho. N.P., age 47 years, Accused S/o. Niravathu Kandathil Poulose, of Niravathi Kandathil (House) Moolankavu (Post), S.Bathiry village, Wayanad District, Kerala State- Pin No: 673592. Cell No: 9447312478. Driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206.

Offence : Causing death by negligence.

Section of Law: U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act

Finding of Court: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E) Knl. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (SMC) Knl.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True copy//

SPL.JMFC (P&E) KNL

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL.

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 SPL.JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.1145 of 2022

1.Offence: 06.02.2020

2.Complaint: 06.02.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused: 06.02.2020

4.Commencement of Trial: 25.03.2025

5.Close of Trial: 25.03.2025

6.Judgment: 23.04.2025

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Spl. Enforcement Bureau, Kurnool

8.Name of the Accused:A1- Madiga Venkateswarlu A2- Boya Kumar

9.Offence: U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act

10. Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11. Finding: NOT GUILTY

12. Result: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act, and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 14.06.2022. Trial commenced on 25.03.2025 and closed on 25.03.2025 and on 23.04.2025 the Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Present:- Smt. M. SAROJANAMMA, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool. Wednesday, this the Twenty-third [23rd] day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.1145 of 2022

Between: The State, rep. by the Excise Inspector,

Kurnool Spl. Enforcement Bureau. ...Complainant

AND

1. Madiga Venkateswalu, S/o Karre Lakshmanna, aged 58 years,

2. Boya Kumar, S/o Boya Balanna, aged 31 years

Both are residents of Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool Mandal....Accused

This case is coming up before me on 22.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri S.Krishna and C. Krishna Reddy, Advocates for accused and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Kurnool Special Enforcement Bureau/LW.1 filed Report as per Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr.No.64/2020 against Accused for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, alleging, in brief, as follows:

“On 06-02-2020 LW1/Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Kurnool along with LWs.2 to 4 conducted raids to detect the excise offences and during the said raids they reached opposite Srirama Talkies, Bangarupeta, Kurnool at about 6.30 a.m. and found two persons in possession of plastic bag each and on suspicion he approached them and on seeing the excise officials the said two persons tried to ran away but we surrounded them and detained them. He questioned the accused about their identity and about the contents of the plastic bags then the accused No.1 and 2 revealed their names and addressed and further they stated that the plastic bags contained the liquor bottles. Then he deputed one Excise constable to secure the mediators from B. Thandrapadu village, the said constable returned after some time and informed that no one forwarded to act as mediators. Then he examined the plastic bag which was in possession of accused No.1 and found it contained 50 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity. There after he examined the plastic bag of accused NO.2 and found it contained the arrack sachets of the same quantity as that A1, then he took two arrack sachets from each bag and poured the arrack into two 180 ml. Capacity empty bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed the identity slips over the said sample bottles and seized two plastic bags with remaining arrack

Corrections Page No. 2 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

sachets from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 duly affixing the identity slips over them and arrested the accused No.1 and 2 after informing the grounds of arrest under special report. Basing on the occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.NO.64/2020 u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) and he served 41 A Cr.P.C. notice to accused with an instruction to appear before the court whenever required. As a part of my investigation, the alleged accused failed to comply the directions given by me and violated the 41 A notice and they did not cooperate the investigation agency to enable the investigation effectively. As such they arrested the alleged accused and remanded to judicial custody. Later he sent the sample to the chemical examination, the chemical examiner examined the sample and issued analysis report and opined that the sample in Sl.No.1587 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The vide C.E.No.248/2020 dt:20-3-2020 are the analysis report. Later he addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, for destruction of the remaining contraband. Accordingly, the Dy.Commissioner, issued orders vide G.O. Ms.No.158 of the Revenue Excise Department issued to permission to file charge sheet. He received the destruction orders from the Dy.Commisioner P&E, vide

R.C.No.114/SEB/ 2020 dt:30-9-2020. Accordingly in the presence of the

panchayatdars, he destroyed the remaining contraband and duly prepared panchanama. LW.5/SI, SEB, Kurnool received CD file from LW1 and after completion of investigation, verified and found correct lines and he filed charge sheet before this Court. 2.)Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

3.)Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure when examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Accused denied the offence made against them. Hence, under section 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure charges under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, was framed against the

Accused No.1 and 2 and read over and explained to them in Vernacular Language and when questioned the Accused, they pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the

Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the

Corrections Page No. 3 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act , beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2 were having possession of illicitly distilled liquor in plastic can contains 100 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity in total 10 liters of ID Arrackandreached opposite Srirama Talkies,

Bangarupeta, Kurnool. Charge for the offence punishable under section under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, is framed against the Accused No.1 and 2. The defence of Accused No.1 and 2 are that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused No.1 and 2 prosecution examined

Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. Pw.1 is the excise official. On the closure of

Prosecution evidence Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of The

Code of Criminal Procedure and on questioning about the incriminating material they denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused No.1 and 2 are that they did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence, evidence of Pw.1 remains for consideration. PW1 is deposed that on 06-02-2020 LW1/Proh.& Excise Sub

Inspector, Kurnool along with LW.2 to 4 conducted raids to detect the excise offences and during the said raids they reached opposite Srirama Talkies, Bangarupeta,

Kurnool at about 6.30 a.m. and found two persons in possession of plastic bag each and on suspicion he approached them and on seeing the excise officials the said two persons tried to ran away but we surrounded them and detained them. He questioned the accused about their identity and about the contents of the plastic bags then the accused No.1 and 2 revealed their names and addressed and further they stated that the plastic bags contained the liquor bottles. Then he deputed one Excise constable to secure the mediators from B. Thandrapadu village, the said constable returned

Corrections Page No. 4 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

after some time and informed that no one forwarded to act as mediators. Then he examined the plastic bag which was in possession of accused NO.1 and found it contained 50 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity. There after he examined the plastic bag of accused NO.2 and found it contained the arrack sachets of the same quantity as that A1, then he took two arrack sachets from each bag and poured the arrack into two 180 ml. Capacity empty bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed the identity slips over the said sample bottles and seized two plastic bags with remaining arrack sachets from the possession of A1 and A2 duly affixing the identity slips over them and arrested the accused NO.1 and 2 after informing the grounds of arrest under special report. Basing on the occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.NO.64/2020 u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) and he served 41 A

Cr.P.C. notice to accused with an instruction to appear before the court whenever required. As a part of my investigation, the alleged accused failed to comply the directions given by me and violated the 41 A notice and she did not cooperate the investigation agency to enable the investigation effectively. As such he arrested the alleged accused and remanded to judicial custody. Later he sent the sample to the chemical examination, the chemical examiner examined the sample and issued analysis report and opined that the sample in Sl.no.1587 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The vide C.E.No.248/2020 dt:20-3- 2020 are the analysis report. Later he addressed to the Superintendent of Police,

Kurnool, for destruction of the remaining contraband. Accordingly, the

Dy.Commissioner, issued orders vide G.O. Ms.No.158 of the Revenue Excise

Department issued to permission to file charge sheet. He received the destruction orders from the Dy.Commisioner P&E, vide R.C.No.114/SEB/ 2020 dt:30-9-2020.

Accordingly in the presence of the panchayatdars, he destroyed the remaining contraband and duly prepared panchanama. LW.5/SI, SEB, Kurnool received CD file from LW1 and after completion of investigation, verified and found correct lines and he filed charge sheet before this Court.

9.)Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more

Corrections Page No. 5 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of

Pw.1 reveals that they have not made any attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.)The Honourable Apex court held that:

(i)2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly, this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter.”

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “ Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) 2005(3) ALT (Crl) 1 (AP) Gajamker Narayana Vs. State of A.P., wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “ No independent respectable witnesses picked up from the locality where offence was committed provisions of section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., not followed, seizure of contraband illegal (para-5), evidence of excise officials PWs.2 interested artificial and routine”. 11.)The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as P.W.1 who are Excise officials and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

12.)In the light of above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the

Corrections Page No. 6 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

13.)In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused under section 437-A Cr.P.C., shall be in-force for six months.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

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

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

PW1: D. Sudhasagara Reddy --Nil—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence side

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: F.I.R. -Nil- Ex.P3: Analysis report. Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings obtained from Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. Ex.P5: Copy of Destruction panchanama.

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

//TRUE COPY//

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 7 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 SPL.JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.1145 of 2022

1.Offence: 06.02.2020

2.Complaint: 06.02.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused: 06.02.2020

4.Commencement of Trial: 25.03.2025

5.Close of Trial: 25.03.2025

6.Judgment: 23.04.2025

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Spl. Enforcement Bureau, Kurnool

8.Name of the Accused:A1- Madiga Venkateswarlu A2- Boya Kumar

9.Offence: U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act

10. Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11. Finding: NOT GUILTY

12. Result: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act, and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 14.06.2022. Trial commenced on 25.03.2025 and closed on 25.03.2025 and on 23.04.2025 the Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Present:- Smt. M. SAROJANAMMA, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool. Wednesday, this the Twenty-third [23rd] day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.1145 of 2022

Between: The State, rep. by the Excise Inspector,

Kurnool Spl. Enforcement Bureau. ...Complainant

AND

1. Madiga Venkateswalu, S/o Karre Lakshmanna, aged 58 years,

2. Boya Kumar, S/o Boya Balanna, aged 31 years

Both are residents of Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool Mandal....Accused

This case is coming up before me on 22.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri S.Krishna and C. Krishna Reddy, Advocates for accused and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Kurnool Special Enforcement Bureau/LW.1 filed Report as per Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr.No.64/2020 against Accused for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, alleging, in brief, as follows:

“On 06-02-2020 LW1/Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Kurnool along with LWs.2 to 4 conducted raids to detect the excise offences and during the said raids they reached opposite Srirama Talkies, Bangarupeta, Kurnool at about 6.30 a.m. and found two persons in possession of plastic bag each and on suspicion he approached them and on seeing the excise officials the said two persons tried to ran away but we surrounded them and detained them. He questioned the accused about their identity and about the contents of the plastic bags then the accused No.1 and 2 revealed their names and addressed and further they stated that the plastic bags contained the liquor bottles. Then he deputed one Excise constable to secure the mediators from B. Thandrapadu village, the said constable returned after some time and informed that no one forwarded to act as mediators. Then he examined the plastic bag which was in possession of accused No.1 and found it contained 50 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity. There after he examined the plastic bag of accused NO.2 and found it contained the arrack sachets of the same quantity as that A1, then he took two arrack sachets from each bag and poured the arrack into two 180 ml. Capacity empty bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed the identity slips over the said sample bottles and seized two plastic bags with remaining arrack

Corrections Page No. 2 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

sachets from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 duly affixing the identity slips over them and arrested the accused No.1 and 2 after informing the grounds of arrest under special report. Basing on the occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.NO.64/2020 u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) and he served 41 A Cr.P.C. notice to accused with an instruction to appear before the court whenever required. As a part of my investigation, the alleged accused failed to comply the directions given by me and violated the 41 A notice and they did not cooperate the investigation agency to enable the investigation effectively. As such they arrested the alleged accused and remanded to judicial custody. Later he sent the sample to the chemical examination, the chemical examiner examined the sample and issued analysis report and opined that the sample in Sl.No.1587 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The vide C.E.No.248/2020 dt:20-3-2020 are the analysis report. Later he addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, for destruction of the remaining contraband. Accordingly, the Dy.Commissioner, issued orders vide G.O. Ms.No.158 of the Revenue Excise Department issued to permission to file charge sheet. He received the destruction orders from the Dy.Commisioner P&E, vide

R.C.No.114/SEB/ 2020 dt:30-9-2020. Accordingly in the presence of the

panchayatdars, he destroyed the remaining contraband and duly prepared panchanama. LW.5/SI, SEB, Kurnool received CD file from LW1 and after completion of investigation, verified and found correct lines and he filed charge sheet before this Court. 2.)Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

3.)Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure when examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Accused denied the offence made against them. Hence, under section 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure charges under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, was framed against the

Accused No.1 and 2 and read over and explained to them in Vernacular Language and when questioned the Accused, they pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the

Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the

Corrections Page No. 3 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act , beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2 were having possession of illicitly distilled liquor in plastic can contains 100 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity in total 10 liters of ID Arrackandreached opposite Srirama Talkies,

Bangarupeta, Kurnool. Charge for the offence punishable under section under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, is framed against the Accused No.1 and 2. The defence of Accused No.1 and 2 are that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused No.1 and 2 prosecution examined

Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. Pw.1 is the excise official. On the closure of

Prosecution evidence Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of The

Code of Criminal Procedure and on questioning about the incriminating material they denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused No.1 and 2 are that they did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence, evidence of Pw.1 remains for consideration. PW1 is deposed that on 06-02-2020 LW1/Proh.& Excise Sub

Inspector, Kurnool along with LW.2 to 4 conducted raids to detect the excise offences and during the said raids they reached opposite Srirama Talkies, Bangarupeta,

Kurnool at about 6.30 a.m. and found two persons in possession of plastic bag each and on suspicion he approached them and on seeing the excise officials the said two persons tried to ran away but we surrounded them and detained them. He questioned the accused about their identity and about the contents of the plastic bags then the accused No.1 and 2 revealed their names and addressed and further they stated that the plastic bags contained the liquor bottles. Then he deputed one Excise constable to secure the mediators from B. Thandrapadu village, the said constable returned

Corrections Page No. 4 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

after some time and informed that no one forwarded to act as mediators. Then he examined the plastic bag which was in possession of accused NO.1 and found it contained 50 arrack sachets each 100 ml. Capacity. There after he examined the plastic bag of accused NO.2 and found it contained the arrack sachets of the same quantity as that A1, then he took two arrack sachets from each bag and poured the arrack into two 180 ml. Capacity empty bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed the identity slips over the said sample bottles and seized two plastic bags with remaining arrack sachets from the possession of A1 and A2 duly affixing the identity slips over them and arrested the accused NO.1 and 2 after informing the grounds of arrest under special report. Basing on the occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.NO.64/2020 u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) and he served 41 A

Cr.P.C. notice to accused with an instruction to appear before the court whenever required. As a part of my investigation, the alleged accused failed to comply the directions given by me and violated the 41 A notice and she did not cooperate the investigation agency to enable the investigation effectively. As such he arrested the alleged accused and remanded to judicial custody. Later he sent the sample to the chemical examination, the chemical examiner examined the sample and issued analysis report and opined that the sample in Sl.no.1587 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The vide C.E.No.248/2020 dt:20-3- 2020 are the analysis report. Later he addressed to the Superintendent of Police,

Kurnool, for destruction of the remaining contraband. Accordingly, the

Dy.Commissioner, issued orders vide G.O. Ms.No.158 of the Revenue Excise

Department issued to permission to file charge sheet. He received the destruction orders from the Dy.Commisioner P&E, vide R.C.No.114/SEB/ 2020 dt:30-9-2020.

Accordingly in the presence of the panchayatdars, he destroyed the remaining contraband and duly prepared panchanama. LW.5/SI, SEB, Kurnool received CD file from LW1 and after completion of investigation, verified and found correct lines and he filed charge sheet before this Court.

9.)Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more

Corrections Page No. 5 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of

Pw.1 reveals that they have not made any attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.)The Honourable Apex court held that:

(i)2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly, this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter.”

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “ Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) 2005(3) ALT (Crl) 1 (AP) Gajamker Narayana Vs. State of A.P., wherein it was held by their Lordship that: “ No independent respectable witnesses picked up from the locality where offence was committed provisions of section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., not followed, seizure of contraband illegal (para-5), evidence of excise officials PWs.2 interested artificial and routine”. 11.)The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as P.W.1 who are Excise officials and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

12.)In the light of above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the

Corrections Page No. 6 of 7

C.C.No.1145 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

13.)In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused under section 437-A Cr.P.C., shall be in-force for six months.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

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

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

PW1: D. Sudhasagara Reddy --Nil—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence side

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: F.I.R. -Nil- Ex.P3: Analysis report. Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings obtained from Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. Ex.P5: Copy of Destruction panchanama.

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

//TRUE COPY//

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 7 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 SPL.JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.1740 of 2022

1.Offence : 24.05.2020

2.Complaint : 24.05.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused: 24.05.2020

4.Commencement of Trial: 15.04.2025

5.Close of Trial: 15.04.2025

6.Judgment: 23.04.2025

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: A1- Himavanthudu A2- P. Manohar Reddy

9.Offence: U/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act

10. Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12. Result: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 34(A) (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 23.07.2022 Trial commenced on 15.04.2025 and closed on 15.04.2025 and on 23.04.2025 the Judgment was

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Present:- Smt. M. SAROJANAMMA, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool. Wednesday, this the Twenty-third [23rd ] day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.1740 of 2022

Between: The State, rep. by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq P.S. ...Complainant

AND

1. Marella Himavanthudu, aged 30 years, S/o Sugnanam, CCTV Camera Technician, R/o H.No.2/80, Kalamandalapadu village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Palle Manohar Reddy, aged 29 years, S/o Maddilety Reddy, Cultivation, R/o Kalamandalapadu village, Midthur Mandal,

Kurnool District....Accused

This case is coming up before me on 22.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri S. Kiran Kumar, Sri P. Chandra Sekhar and Sri G. Giddaiah, Advocates for Accused No.1 and 2 and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Kurnool Taluq P.S/LW5, filed Police Report as per Section 173 of

Criminal Procedure Code in Cr.No.257/2020 against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, alleging, in brief, as follows:

“On 24.05.2020 at about 15.00 hours on credible information LW.4/SI of police along with LWs1 and 2/police constables left from the police station on police jeep

Br.No. AP18P 1898 and went to Panchalingala RTO check-post, Panchalingala,

Kurnool mandal at 15.30 hours for conducting vehicles checking. He noticed two persons were coming on Honda shine motor cycle Br.No.AP21.BK.5674 to his side by carrying one black color carry bag. On seeing police, he tried skulk away, but with the assistance of LWs.1 and 2, he detained the said person. On his instructions, one of the police constables went to secure panchayathdars at Panchalingala village but none came forward. On his enquiry the said person disclosed their identity as accused No.1/M. Himavanthudu and accused No.2/ P. Manohar Reddy. On search of a bag, it contains (1) 08 bottles of Mc.Dowells whiskey each 180 ml. (2) 08 bottles of

Corrections Page No. 2 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

Imperial Blue each 180 ml. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he purchased the said bottles in Telangana state to sell the same in Andhra Pradesh for higher rates. He apprehended the accused and seized 16 liquor bottles and lifted one bottle as sample under cover of police proceedings. Then police returned to Police Station along with seized property and accused. Basing on the police Proceedings he registered a case in Cr.No.257/2020 u/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted

FIRs to all concerned. He served 41(A) of CrPC notice to the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble Court whenever received summons. He sent the sample bottles to the chemical examiner, REL, Kurnool for analysis. Thereafter I received Analysis report vide C.E.No.493/2020 Dated 03-07-2020 that the sample

Sl.No.4548 and 4549 are Indian liquor. Later LW.5/SI of police received the CD file from LW.4 for further investigation. Thereafter LW.5 sent a letter for the proceedings of Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscation Authority, Kurnool for destruction of the remaining liquor bottles along with sample bottles and kept the same in the police station and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.)Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.

3.)Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure when examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Accused No.1 and 2 denied the offence made against them.

Hence, under section 240 of Code of Criminal Procedure charges under section 34(A) of A.P.

Excise Act, was framed against the Accused No.1 and 2 and read over and explained to them in Vernacular Language and when questioned the Accused No.1 and 2, they pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3.

On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

Corrections Page No. 3 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 of the charges under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2 were in illegal possession of (1) 08 bottles of Mc.Dowells whiskey each 180 ml. (2) 08 bottles of

Imperial Blue each 180 ml. in total 16 bottles while the accused A1 and A2 are transporting the liquor from Telangana state to A.P. state for selling them at higher rates in

A.P. by violating excise rules. The defence of Accused No.1 and 2 are that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1 is are the excise official.

On the closure of Prosecution evidence Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and on questioning about the incriminating material they denied the same and pleaded no defense. The defence of the accused is that they did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence, evidence of PW1 remains for consideration.

PW.1 is deposed that on 24.05.2020 at about 15.00 hours on credible information

LW.4/SI of police along with LWs1 and 2/police constables left from the police station on police jeep Br.No. AP18P 1898 and went to Panchalingala RTO check-post,

Panchalingala, Kurnool mandal at 15.30 hours for conducting vehicles checking. We noticed two persons were coming on Honda shine motor cycle Br.No.AP21.BK.5674 to his side by carrying one black color carry bag. On seeing police, he tried skulk away, but with the assistance of LWs.1 and 2, he detained the said person. On his instructions, one of the police constables went to secure panchayathdars at

Panchalingala village but none came forward. On his enquiry the said person disclosed their identity as accused No.1/M. Himavanthudu and accused No.2/ P.

Manohar Reddy. On search of a bag, it contains (1) 08 bottles of Mc.Dowells whiskey each 180 ml. (2) 08 bottles of Imperial Blue each 180 ml. On his enquiry, the accused confessed that he purchased the said bottles in Telangana state to sell the same in Andhra Pradesh for higher rates. He apprehended the accused and seized

Corrections Page No. 4 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

16 liquor bottles and lifted one bottle as sample under cover of police proceedings.

Then police returned to Police Station along with seized property and accused.

Basing on the police Proceedings he registered a case in Cr.No.257/2020 u/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted FIRs to all concerned. He served 41(A) of CrPC notice to the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble Court whenever received summons. He sent the sample bottles to the chemical examiner,

REL, Kurnool for analysis. Thereafter I received Analysis report vide

C.E.No.493/2020 Dated 03-07-2020 that the sample Sl.No.4548 and 4549 are Indian liquor. Later LW.5/SI of police received the CD file from LW.4 for further investigation.

Thereafter LW.5 sent a letter for the proceedings of Superintendent of Police-cum-

Confiscation Authority, Kurnool for destruction of the remaining liquor bottles along with sample bottles and kept the same in the police station and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

9.)Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that they have not made any attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused No.1 and 2 were caught.

Hence, PW.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal

Procedure Coming to the confession made by the Accused No.1 and 2. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused No.1 and 2 may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act.

10.The Honourable Apex court held that:

(i)2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and

Corrections Page No. 5 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

filed charge sheet. Certainly, this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter.”

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) 2005(3) ALT (Crl) 1 (AP) Gajamker Narayana Vs. State of A.P., wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“ No independent respectable witnesses picked up from the locality where offence was committed provisions of section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., not followed, seizure of contraband illegal (para-5), evidence of excise officials PW.1 interested artificial and routine”.

11.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand, as P.W.1 who is

Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

12.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused under section 437-A Cr.P.C., shall be in-force for six months. The case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

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

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 6 of 7

C.C.No.1740 of 2022 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side PW1: G. Obulesu --Nil—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 : F.I.R. -Nil- Ex.P3 : Analysis report.

Sd/- M. Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

//TRUE COPY//

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 7 of 7