Sri.t.v.s.s.prakash, M.a., Llm.,

1

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.260/2015

Nature of Offence: Sec.197 of IPC.

Date of Judgment 23.02.2018

Offence Report ofApprehen-Date ofReleaseCommenceClosure ofSentence complainant sion of accusedremandon bail ment of trialtrial or order 04.02.08--------21.10.1710.01.18 23.02.18

Explanation for the delay : The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant : Lokam Sreerama Murthy, S/o Ramachandra Rao, Age 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Emani, Duggirala Mandal.

Accused : Tadiboina Nagamalleswara Rao, S/o Veeraswamy, Age 60 years, Retd.Panchayat Secretary, House No.20-15-52, Kondavari street, Chinaravur, Tenali.

Finding: Not Guilty.

Sentence : In the result, accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.197 IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to: Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

PRESENT: Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.260/2015

Between: Lokam Sreerama Murthy, S/o Ramachandra Rao, Age 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Emani, Duggirala Mandal.

... Complainant

and

Tadiboina Nagamalleswara Rao, S/o Veeraswamy, Age 60 years, Retd.Panchayat Secretary, House No.20-15-52, Kondavari street, Chinaravur, Tenali.

… Accused

This case is coming on 07.02.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Raghavaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence U/Sec.197 IPC.

2. The case of prosecution is as follows:

The contention of the complainant i.e., resident of Emani, Duggirala Mandal. Lokam Nageswara Rao who is resident of Moulali, housing board, Hyderabad is elder brother of the complainant. The accused worked as Panchayat Secretary, Emani and he retired from service. Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao is also resident of Emani village. The complainant, Lokam Nageswara Rao, Smt Kathika Rajyalakshmi and one Purnachandra Rao are the children of Lokam Ramachandra Rao. The said Rama Chandra Rao got immovable properties in Emani and also he has deposited huge amounts in the post office, Emani, Andhra Bank , Emani in his name. The said properties constitute joint family members in which all the four children have got right.

3.The complainant submits that Lokam Nageswara Rao developed evil design to knock away the above properties himself and he got Ac.0.60 cents of 3 wet land sold by said Ramachandra Rao on 16.10.2004 to one Smt Ghantasala Rajeswari and another Ac.0.50 cents of wet land on 04.04.2005 to the said Rajeswari behind the back of other children and Ramachandra Rao and without their knowledge and taken away the sale consideration from her. The said Lokam Nageswara Rao also got Ac.0.63 cents of land by the said Ramachandra Rao to A3 on 10.10.2007 behind the back of other children and without their knowledge and taken away the entire sale consideration from Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao who colluded with him. On or about 15.01.2008 Lokam Nageswara Rao took his father Ramachandra Rao to Hyderabad. Thereafter, the said Ramachandra Rao did not turn up to Emani and his whereabouts are not known. Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao is a close associate of Lokam Nageswara Rao and both of them hatched up a plan to bring into existence a false death certificate pertaining to the said Ramachandra Rao and approached the accused who also join hands with them. The accused at the instance of said Lokam Nageswara Rao and Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao brought into existence a false death certificate as if the father of the complainant i.e., Ramachandra Rao died on 30.01.2008 at Emani and the same is entered in Birth & Deaths Register on 04.04.2008. In fact the said Ramachandra Rao did not turn up from Hyderabad and he was not died on 30.01.2008 and no death ceremonies are performed by his children. Lokam Nageswara Rao obtained the copy of the said false death certificate from the accused herein on 04.02.2008 approached the post master, Emani and also Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Emani along with Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao and applied for refund of the deposit amounts standing in the name of the father of the complainant, claiming as Nominee and he has produced the copies of false death certificates before them. The complainant having come to know about the fraud committed by the accused herein and Lokam Nageswara Rao , Tummapudi Jagamohana Rao, sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 10.03.2008 about the false death certificate and on 29.03.2008 the complainant and his sister again sent another petition to the Superintendent of police, Guntur. The post master, post office, Emani and the Branch Manager , Andhra Bank, Emani branch having come to know about the fraud played refused to refund the deposit amounts standing in the name of Ramachandra Rao to Lokam Nageswara Rao. The complainant has filed a complaint before this court when the police have not taken any action against the accused herein and the brother of complainant and Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao and the said complainant has been referred to the police Duggirla to register the case and investigate into the matter and filed report. Accordingly, the police Duggirla registered a case vide Cr.No.177/2009 and filed charge sheet against Lokam Nageswara Rao and T.Jaganmohana Rao deleting the accused herein. The complainant has filed a protest petition to implead the 4 accused herein also is the main person who involved in this crime and the protest petition was dismissed by this court and aggrieved by the said dismissal of the protest petition the complainant preferred C.R.P.No.76/2011 on the file of

Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur and the same

was allowed and directed this court to take cognizance of this case against the accused herein U/Sec.197 IPC and try the matter. In the said circumstances the complainant is constrained to file this complaint and prayed to punish the accused U/Sec.197 IPC.

4. This complainant is taken on file against the accused U/Sec.197 IPC and issued summons to the accused and accused made his appearance and the accused was furnished with copies and thereafter, he was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed against accused U/Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.197 IPC and the allegations made by the complainant has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant was examined P.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. After closure of the complainant evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the complainant against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused and he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

6. Arguments heard.

7.Now the point for consideration is : Whether the accused in collusion with others issued false death

certificates of the father of the complainant as contended and whether

the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt ?

Point:

8.This complaint is filed by the complainant who was examined as P.W.1 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.197 IPC. It is the contention of P.W.1 that his father blessed with four children and they are P.W.1 herein, Lokam Nageswara Rao, Kathika Rajyalakshmi and one Purnachandra Rao. The father of P.W.1 by name Lokam Ramachandra Rao has earned properties and huge amounts were deposited in post office, Emani and also in Andhra Bank, Emani 5 branch. On one day the brother of P.W.1 by name Lokam Nageswara Rao and his associate Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao together taken the father of P.W.1 to Hyderabad and thereafter, P.W.1 has never seen his father. The brother of P.W.1 by name Lokam Nageswara Rao hatched a plan in collusion with Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao in order to grab the properties of their father and they have cooked up the false death certificate in collusion with the accused herein who was the then panchayat secretary of Emani Grama Panchayat. Showing that the father of P.W.1 died on 30.01.2008 at Emani. Having smelt the same P.W.1 has lodged a report before the Superintendent of police, Guntur and they have not taken any action and thereafter, once again he lodged a report to Superintendent of police Guntur and there is no proper action against the accused and other two persons and the complainant has filed a complaint before this court against Lokam Nageswara Rao, Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao and the accused herein for the offences U/Sec.197, 198 & 420 r/w 511 IPC vide CFR.5658/2008 and the same was referred to the police Duggirla and they inturn registered the case vide Cr.No.177/2009 and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against Lokam Nageswara Rao and Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao by deleting the accused herein who is arrayed as A2 in CFR.5658/2008. Thereafter, P.W.1 filed protest petition vide CFR.No.10458/2010 aggrieved by the charge sheet filed by the police Duggirala showing the accused A1 and A3 and deleting the accused herein and the said protest petition was dismissed on 05.08.2011 by my learned predecessor. Aggrieved by the said orders P.W.1 preferred CRP.76/2011 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur and the same was allowed on 17.04.2014 directing this court to take cognizance against the accused herein U/Sec.197 IPC and try the case and accordingly, this complaint has been filed by the complainant.

9.The above said contentions of complainant has been categorically deposed by him as P.W.1. In order to show that the accused herein fabricated the death certificate of the father of P.W.1 by name Lokam Ramachandra Rao stating that he died on 30.01.2008. In order to show that the said Ramachandra Rao died on any other date and his whereabouts are not known by P.W.1 as on date. It is clear that the deposits for which the brother of P.W.1 wanted to withdraw the amounts lying in the name of his father in post office Emani and Andhra Bank, Emani branch and those deposits are intact and they were not withdrawn as P.W.1 has reported the matter to the concerned authorities and no amount has been issued to Lokam Nageswara Rao who is the brother of P.W.1. It is the grievance of P.W.1 that the accused is prime person behind this case and the police has deleted his name from the charge sheet filed by them vide C.C.No.437/2009 were acquitted by my learned predecessor after full fledged 6 trial on 28.01.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant herein has not preferred any appeal and the same become final. It is the contention of the accused that the father of P.W.1 died in Sabari Old age Ashramam, Tenali and his dead-body was not taken by any of his children and the Ashramam people has performed the last rites of P.W.1 father which is denied. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that the whereabouts of his father is not known to him till date. P.W.1 has not lodged any report before the police concerned about the missing of his father. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that he is not interested in his father, but he is interested in the money earned by his father and deposited in different organizations. It is submitted by the accused that he has issued the death certificate of the father of P.W.1, basing on the declaration given by Lokam Nageswara Rao and subsequently, after coming to know about the attitude of Lokam Nageswara Rao the accused cancelled the death certificate issued by him after marking through enquiry. There is no damage caused to P.W.1 or other family members for issuance of death certificate and added to the above, it is the contention of P.W.1 that the accused herein incollusion with Lokam Nageswara Rao and Tummapudi Jaganmohana Rao tried to cheat the complainant herein and the same has been averted by informing all the concerned authorities not to release the amounts i.e., cash deposited by the father of P.W.1 in post office and in the bank afore-sated.

10.The death of P.W.1 father is not certain till date and his whereabouts are not known since long time and the deposits which were made by the father of P.W.1 were not withdrawn by Lokam Nageswara Rao in pursuance of the fake death certificate alleged to be given by the accused herein. As can be understood from the evidence of P.W.1 he is vindictive towards accused herein and P.W.1 has asked for old age pension to be recorded in the concerned records by the accused and he has refused for the same and out of grouse against the accused herein P.W.1 might have filed this case.

11.Taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case the contention of complainant that the accused is the main person to create fake death certificate of his father is not trustworthy and after realizing the mistake committed by the accused, he has promptly cancelled the death certificate of P.W.1 and informed to the concerned authorities regarding the same. It can be clearly understood that the accused by mistake has done these acts and it is not intentional or voluntary and therefore, the acts of the accused does not come U/Sec.197 IPC. If at all the accused still after knowing that the father of P.W.1 death certificate is not properly issued and kept quiet, then he will be liable for punishment U/Sec.197 IPC. In the present case on hand the complainant failed to 7 project and prove the case against the accused and out of vengeance against the accused the complainant filed this case and the acts of the accused does not attract Sec.197 IPC and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the light of above discussion, I answered this point against the prosecution.

13.In the result, accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.197 IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2018.

sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash,

II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Lokam Srirama Murthy

For Defence:-None-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Nil

For Defence: Nil

MOs. Marked

Nil

sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

1

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.488/2017 (PR.No.39/2017 of Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala)

Nature of Offence: Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Date of Judgment 23-02-2018

Offence Report ofApprehensioDate ofReleaseCommenClosureSentence or complainann of accusedremandon bail ce-mentof trial order t of trial 01-6-1701-6-1701-06-1702-6-176-6-1704-01-1811.01.1823.02.18

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non- production of witnesses.

Complainant : State: The SI of Proh & Excise, Duggirala.

Accused: Murala Venkateswara Rao S/o Sri Ramulu, 61 years R/o Morampudi village, Duggirala Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

So far, the case property i.e., MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/T.V.S.S.Prakash II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash, II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday this the 23rd day of February, 2018

C.C.NO.488/2017

Between:

The State: Proh & Excise Inspector, Duggirala.

……..Complainant

Vs.

Murala Venkateswara Rao S/o Sri Ramulu, 61 years R/o Morampudi village, Duggirala Mandal.

……...Accused

This case is coming on 07-02-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri B.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows;

The contention of the prosecution that on 01-06-2017, LW3-Sub-Inspector,

Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur along with staff i.e., LW1-Sri I.Yesopu, Constable, ENFT,

Guntur, LW2-Sri Sk.Basha Vali, Head Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur, while conducting patroling for Proh & Exicse offences, reached the place of offence i.e., on right side margin of the road, at foot path bridge that leads towards Morampudi village in Duggirala to Managalgiri road which is scene of offence at about 5-30 p.m, and found the accused, coming on a moped by keeping a white plastic gunny bag at his foot and on seeing the Excise Personnel in uniform, he got perturbed and tried to fled away from the scene and having observed the same, LW3-Sub-Inspector, Proh &

Excise, ENFT, Guntur apprehended the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry he admitted that bag held by him having liquor bottles. Then, LW3-Sub-Inspector sent

LW1-Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur to secure independent mediators and after some time he returned and reported that village officials were not available in the village and the villagers refused to came forward to act as mediators in Excise cases.

Then LW3-Sub-Inspector decided to proceed under special report and on verification of the bag held by the accused, they found 69-HD Heavens Door Whisky bottles of 3 180 ml each with full of liquor, company seals and their EAL numbers are removed and they were decided to be as duty paid liquor bottles. On enquiry the accused furnished his name and other identity particulars. LW3-Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise,

ENFT, Guntur drawn the sample of one bottle in order to send for chemical analysis and kept the remaining contraband in the same bag tied the same, sealed and affixed the identity slips to the sample bottles and the bag in which remaining contraband is kept. The aforesaid proceedings were incorporated in the special report scribed by

LW2-Head Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur. A copy of special report was served on the accused under acknowledgement. The special report proceedings commenced at 6-00 p.m, and concluded at 7-00 p.m., After completion of the special report, the accused along with contraband seized was brought to Proh & Excise

Station, Duggirala and handed over the case for further investigation on the point of jurisdiction to the station sentry.

Basing on the special report, LW4-Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala registered a case vide PR.No.39/2017 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and investigated the matter to certain extent and after completion of investigation, as his investigation revealed that the accused has committed this offence, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.This court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under Sec.

34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused he was furnished with copies under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments heard.

4

6.Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the accused is carrying liquor bottles without any licence or permit or bill for illegal sale and make profit of the same in order to eakeout his livelihood as contended by the prosecution and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

7.The case of the prosecution is that LW3-Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT,

Guntur who was examined as PW1 along with his staff while conducting patrolling for

Proh & Excise offences and reached the place of offence which is within the limits of

Duggirala Mandal at about 5-30 p.m., on 01-06-2017 which is the scene of offence and found the accused under suspicious circumstances keeping a white plastic gunny bag at his foot on TVS XL Moped bearing Registration No.AP 07 AD 2553 and PW1 apprehended the accused when he tried to fled away from the scene and the accused admitted that there are liquor bottles in the bag held by him and PW1 in order to verify the said bag has sent LW1-Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur to secure independent mediators and after some time he returned back and reported that the village officials were not available in the village, and the village elders refused to come forward to act as mediators in Excise offences and in the said circumstances, PW1 proceeded under special report and recorded confession and recovery of the accused under Ex.P1. The sample was drawn from the contraband seized from the possession of the accused in order to send for chemical analysis vide MO.1. After completion of

Ex.P1, the accused along with contraband seized and the sample bottles vide MO.1 were brought to Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala to proceed further in the matter on the point of jurisdiction, handed over to station sentry.

8.The above said contention of the prosecution has been deposed by PW1 and a glance of the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 5-30 p.m, and securing independent mediators at the scene of offence is not a difficult task for the Investigating agency as the place of offence is a busy locality. The proceeding under special report does not amount to any irregularity, but at the same time, the Investigating agency has to show that securing independent mediators to record the confession and recovery of the accused is remote chance. There is no technical flaw in proceedings under Ex.P1, but at the same time making a bald statement that no independent mediators were available at the scene of offence and the Excise personnel tried their best to secure independent mediators is not believable. Ex.P1 is an unilateral document and the confession and recovery of the 5 accused basing on Ex.P1 and on the sole testimony of PW1 who is an interested witness to the prosecution cannot be relied upon. According to the prosecution, the accused is in possession of 69-HD Heavens Door Whisky bottles of 180 ml each, and out of them MO.1 sample bottle was drawn in order to send for chemical analysis. It is the defence of the accused that he never confessed this offence and no recovery was made from his possession which is denied by PW1. In order to show that PW1 has made his best efforts to secure independent mediators. There is no iota of documentary proof such as issuing of notice to mediators or to any other village revenue officials, except the sole testimony of PW1. In the aforesaid circumstances it is not believable that PW1 and the remaining raid party has gone for patrolling offencesas per the directions of their superiors.

9.According to the prosecution, after completion of Ex.P1, PW1 has brought the accused along with contraband seized and MO.1 to the Proh & Excise Station,

Duggirala and handed over the Station sentry to proceed further on the point of jurisdiction. LW5-Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala who was examined as PW2 basing on Ex.P1 has registered a case vide PR.No.39/2017 under Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, PW2 has produced the accused before this Hon’ble Court for Judicial remand and sent

MO.1 for chemical analysis and received analysis report vide Ex.P3 opining that the samples contain “Indian liquor”. He has also addressed a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for issuing confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband in this case. After completion of investigation, as his investigation revealed that the accused committed this offence, he filed charge sheet against accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968. Registering the case, sending MO.1 sample for chemical analysis receiving chemical analysis report vide

Ex.P3 and addressing letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband are all formalities to proceed in the matter. When the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable, the entire case of the prosecution fails. This court is of considered opinion that the Excise Personnel has made a table investigation and filed statistical charge sheet against the accused without projecting and proving the case regarding Ex.P1 and therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believable.

10.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the confession and recovery of the accused regarding contraband seized that the accused is carrying the 6 same in order to sell the same for profit to eakout his livelihood is unbelievable and in order to show to their superiors as per their direction they have foisted this false case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968.

11.In the light of the above discussion I answered this point against the prosecution.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

So far, the case property i.e., MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2018

Sd/T.V.S.S.Prakash II Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution :

PW.1: Smt P.Prasanna Lakshmi Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur PW.2: Sri G.Madhusudhana Rao (Investigation Officer)

For Defence: None Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Dt.01-06-2017Special report. Ex.P2Dt.01-06-2017FIR vide PR.No.39/2017 of Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Ex.P3Dt.20-07-2017Analysis Report vide R.C.No.1282/2017 issued by Govt.Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur. For Defence:

Nil.

Material Objects marked

MO.1: One sample bottle.Sd/T.V.S.S.Prakash

II Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali 7

1

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.483/2017 (PR.No.22/2017 of Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala)

Nature of Offence: Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Date of Judgment 23-02-2018

Offence Report ofApprehensioDate ofReleaseCommenClosureSentence or complainann of accusedremandon bail ce-mentof trial order t of trial 23-4-1723-4-1724-4-1724-4-1726-4-1704-01-1811.01.1823.02.18

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non- production of witnesses.

Complainant : State: The SI of Proh & Excise, Duggirala.

Accused: Dulla Sambasiva Rao S/o Gopala Rao, 65 years R/o Kantamrajukonduru, Duggirala Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

So far, the case property i.e., MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd./T.V.S.S.Prakash II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash, II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday this the 23rd day of February, 2018

C.C.NO.483/2017

Between:

The State: Proh & Excise Inspector, Duggirala.

……..Complainant

Vs.

Dulla Sambasiva Rao S/o Gopala Rao, 65 years R/o Kantamrajukonduru, Duggirala Mandal.

……...Accused

This case is coming on 07-02-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri K.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows;

The contention of the prosecution that on 23-04-2017, LW4-Inspector, Proh &

Excise, ENFT, Guntur along with staff i.e., LW1-Sri S.V.Subba Rao, Head Constable,

ENFT, Guntur, LW2-Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur,

LW3-Sri V.Subba Rao, Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur while conducting patroling for Proh & Exicse offences, reached the place of offence i.e., bus stop,

Kantamrajukonduru village which is scene of offence at about 4-00 p.m, and found the accused standing there by holding a white plastic bag in his right hand and on seeing the Excise Personnel in uniform, he got perturbed and tried to fled away from the scene and having observed the same, LW4-Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT,

Guntur apprehended the accused with the help of staff and on enquiry he admitted that bag held by him having liquor bottles. Then, LW4-Sub-Inspector sent LW1-Head

Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur to secure independent mediators in order to search the bag held by accused and after some time, he returned and reported that village elders refused to came forward to act as mediators in Excise cases. LW4-Sub-

Inspector decided to proceed under special report and on verification of the bag held by the accused, they found 21-Old Tavern Fine Whiksy bottles of 180 ml each with full 3 of liquor, company seals and their EAL numbers are removed and they were decided to be as duty paid liquor bottles. On enquiry the accused furnished his name and other identity particulars. LW4-Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur drawn the sample of one bottle in order to send for chemical analysis from the contraband in possession of accused and kept the remaining contraband in the same bag tied the same, sealed and affixed the identity slips to the sample bottles and the bag in which remaining contraband is kept. The aforesaid proceedings were incorporated in the special report scribed by LW2-Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur and after completion of the special report the accused along with contraband was brought to

Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala and handed over the case for further investigation on the point of jurisdiction to the station sentry.

Basing on the special report, LW5-Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala registered a case vide PR.No.22/2017 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and investigated the matter and after completion of investigation, as his investigation revealed that the accused has committed this offence, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.This court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under Sec.

34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused he was furnished with copies under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the accused is carrying liquor bottles without any licence or permit or bill for illegal sale and make profit of the same in order to eakeout his livelihood as contended by the prosecution and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the 4 accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

7.The case of the prosecution is that LW4-Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT,

Guntur who was examined as PW1 along with his staff while conducting patrolling for

Proh & Excise offences and reached the place of offence i.e., bus stop,

Kantamrajukonduru village which is within the limits of Duggirala Mandal at about 4-00 p.m., on 23-04-2017 which is the scene of offence and found the accused under suspicious circumstances holding a white plastic bag in his right hand and PW1 apprehended the accused when he tried to fled away from the scene and the accused admitted that there are liquor bottles in the bag held by him and PW1 in order to verify the said bag has sent LW1-Constable, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur to secure independent mediators and after some time he returned back and reported that the village elders refused to come forward to act as mediators in Excise offences and in the said circumstances, PW1 proceeded under special report and recorded confession and recovery of the accused under Ex.P1. The sample was drawn from the contraband seized from the possession of the accused in order to send for chemical analysis vide MO.1. After completion of Ex.P1, the accused along with contraband seized and the sample bottles vide MO.1 were brought to Proh & Excise Station,

Duggirala to proceed further in the matter on the point of jurisdiction, handed over to station sentry.

8.The above said contention of the prosecution has been deposed by PW1 and a glance of the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 4-00 p.m, and securing independent mediators at the scene of offence is not a difficult task for the Investigating agency as the place of offence is a busy locality. The proceeding under special report does not amount to any irregularity, but at the same time, the Investigating agency has to show that securing independent mediators to record the confession and recovery of the accused is remote chance. There is no technical flaw in proceedings under Ex.P1, but at the same time making a bald statement that no independent mediators were available at the scene of offence and the Excise personnel tried their best to secure independent mediators is not believable. Ex.P1 is an unilateral document and the confession and recovery of the accused basing on Ex.P1 on the sole testimony of PW1 who is an interested witness to the prosecution cannot be relied upon. According to the prosecution, the accused is in possession of 21-Old Tavern Fine Whisky bottles of 180 ml each, and out of them

MO.1 sample bottle was drawn in order to send for chemical analysis. It is the defence 5 of the accused that he never confessed this offence and no recovery was made from his possession which is denied by PW1. In order to show that PW1 has made his best efforts to secure independent mediators,there is no iota of documentary proof such as issuing of notice to mediators or to any other village revenue officials, except the sole testimony of PW1. In the aforesaid circumstances it is not believable that PW1 and the remaining raid party has gone for patrolling to detect Excise offencesas per the directions of their superiors.

9.According to the prosecution, after completion of Ex.P1, PW1 has brought the accused along with contraband seized and MO.1 to the Proh & Excise Station,

Duggirala and handed over to the Station sentry to proceed further on the point of jurisdiction. LW5-Inspector, Proh & Excise, Duggirala who was examined as PW2 basing on Ex.P1 has registered a case vide PR.No.22/2017 under Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, PW2 has produced the accused before this Hon’ble Court for Judicial remand and sent

MO.1 for chemical analysis and received analysis report vide Ex.P3 opining that the samples contain “Indian liquor”. PW2 has also addressed a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for issuing confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband in this case. After completion of investigation, as his investigation revealed that the accused committed this offence, he filed charge sheet against accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968. Registering the case, sending MO.1 sample for chemical analysis receiving chemical analysis report vide

Ex.P3 and addressing letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband are all formalities to proceed in the matter. When the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable, the entire case of the prosecution fails. This court is of considered opinion that the Excise Personnel has made a table investigation and filed statistical charge sheet against the accused without projecting and proving the case regarding Ex.P1 and therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believable.

10.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the confession and recovery of the accused regarding contraband alleged to be seized from the accused and the accused is carrying the contraband in order to sell the same for profit to eakout his livelihood is unbelievable and in order to show to their superiors as per their direction and they have foisted this false case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise 6

Act 1968.

11.In the light of the above discussion I answered this point against the prosecution.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

So far, the case property i.e., MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2018

Sd./T.V.S.S.Prakash II Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For prosecution :

PW.1: Smt P.Prasanna Lakshmi Sub-Inspector, Proh & Excise, ENFT, Guntur PW.2: Sri G.Madhusudhana Rao (Investigation Officer)

For Defence: None

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Dt.23-04-2017Special report. Ex.P2Dt.23-04-2017FIR vide PR.No.22/2017 of Proh & Excise Station, Duggirala U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Ex.P3Dt.20-07-2017Analysis Report vide R.C.No.1282/2017 issued by Govt.Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur. For Defence:

Nil.

Material Objects marked

MO.1: One sample bottle.

Sd./T.V.S.S.Prakash II Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TENALI

PRESENT: Smt Y.Prema Latha, II Addl Junior Civil Judge

Sunday this the 22nd day of April, 2018

C.C.No.178/2018

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Kollipara P.S………Complainant

Versus.

Karumanchi Subba Rao ……Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P for complainant and upon perusing the material on record, and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court the following.

JUDGMENT

Accused is called present. He is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.338 IPC, read over and explained to him in

Telugu. He pleaded guilty. Admission of accused seems to voluntarily.

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offences under

Sec.338 IPC and he is convicted under Sec.252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Total fine of

Rs.1000/-.(Rupees One thousand only).

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of April,

2018.

Sd/- Y.Prema Latha,

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TENALI

APGU240009102019

IN THE COURT OF

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT TENALI ,GUNTUR

(Presided Over by Y.Prema Latha )

CC/756/2019 (PROSECUTION): SHO, Tenali Rural P.S Through Police Station Officer TENALI TALUK PS 267, Tenali Town

TENALI GUNTUR

VERSUS Gudivada Venkata Narayana, Age: 40, Kolakaluru village, Tenali Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Gudivada Venkata Narayana Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 286,336 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

9(b) of EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 30-12-2019)

Accused is called present. He is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and he admitted the offence punishable U/s.286,336 of IPC and Sec.9-b of Explosive Act and he is found guilty and convicted U/s.252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, IDSI for one month U/s.286 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, I.D.S.I for one week U/s.336 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- , IDSI for two months, U/s.9(b) of Explosive Act. Total fine of Rupees Three thousand two hundred and fifty only (Sd/- Y.Prema Latha)

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TENALI GUNTUR