T.veera Raghavendra Rao

1 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2068/2025

01. Date of offence: 18.12.2024

02. Date of Complaint : 18.12.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 18.12.2024

04. Release on bail: 19.12.2024

05. Commencement of trial: 07.10.2025

06. Closure of trial: 07.10.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 09.10.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Korada Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Rambabu, Age 59 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Mirthipadu village, Seethanagaram Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: T.VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 09 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.

C.C.No.2068/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Korada Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Rambabu, Age 59 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Mirthipadu village, Seethanagaram Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.Matta Venkata Ramana, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.474/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 18.12.2024 at about 10.00 A.M, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Mirthipadu Village, Seethanagaram Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found one person with a bag in her hand. On seeing the raid party, she tried to escape. On suspicion, the Inspector detained her with the help of the staff and questioned her about the contents of the mica bag. She revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of 3 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mediators, but in vain. Then, the Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 05 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.474/2024 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No. 180/2025, Sl.No. 1666, dt. 21.01.2025 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 08.05.2025, Vide Rc.No.B2/442/2024, dt.01.04.2024, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 M.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Head Constable, P&E Korukonda and LW3 P.Usha Rani, P&E Head Constable, Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which she denied the same and reported that she has no evidence in her defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda has deposed that on 18.12.2024 at about 10.00 AM, he received reliable information about selling of ID liquor at Mirthipadu Village, Seethanagaram 5 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mandal. He along with his staff proceeded towards the said address. On reaching, they noticed one person holding a mica bag. On suspicion, he detained her with the help of his staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. LW.2 returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 5 lts of ID liquor in 1 polythene cover. He drew MO.1sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted theEx.P1special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered Ex.P2FIR in Cr.No.474/2024 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3letter of advice.He received Ex.P4chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 08.05.2025, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.442/2024. He identifies the accused before the court. He forwarded her to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Mirthipadu Village and seized 05 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 05 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they 6 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 CC.No.2068/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.10.2025:J.SrinivasaBalaji,P&E-NONE- Inspector,P&Estation Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.18.12.2024: Special report Ex.P2Dt.18.12.2024: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.21.01.2025: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2048/2025

01. Date of offence: 05.03.2025

02. Date of Complaint : 05.03.2025

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 05.03.2025

04. Release on bail: 10.03.2025

05. Commencement of trial: 07.10.2025

06. Closure of trial: 07.10.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 09.10.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Gubbala Krishnaveni, W/o Ramudu, Age 38 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kanupuru village, Korukonda Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: T.VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 09 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.

C.C.No.2048/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Gubbala Krishnaveni, W/o Ramudu, Age 38 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kanupuru village, Korukonda Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.K.Delip Kumar, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.79/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 05.03.2025 at about 01.00 P.M, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Kanupuru Village, Korukonda Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found one person with a bag in her hand. On seeing the raid party, she tried to escape. On suspicion, the Inspector detained her with the help of the staff and questioned her about the contents of the mica bag. She revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of 3 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mediators, but in vain. Then, the Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 10 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.79/2025 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No. 1247/2025, Sl.No. 9587, dt. 25.04.2025 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 07.07.2025, Vide Rc.No.B2/442/2024, dt.29.05.2025, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 M.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Head Constable, P&E Korukonda and LW3 P.Usha Rani, P&E Head Constable, Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which she denied the same and reported that she has no evidence in her defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda has deposed that on 05.03.2025 at about 01.00 PM, he received reliable information about selling of ID liquor at Kanupuru Village, Korukonda mandal.

5 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

He along with his staff proceeded towards the said address. On reaching, they noticed one person holding a mica bag. On suspicion, he detained her with the help of his staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. LW.2 returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 10 lts of ID liquor in 2 polythene covers. He drew MO.1sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted theEx.P1special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered Ex.P2FIR in Cr.No.79/2025 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3letter of advice.He received Ex.P4chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 07.07.2025, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.442/2024. He identifies the accused before the court. He forwarded her to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Kanupuru Village and seized 10 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 10 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they 6 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 CC.No.2048/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.10.2025:J.SrinivasaBalaji,P&E-NONE- Inspector,P&Estation Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.05.03.2025: Special report Ex.P2Dt.05.03.2025: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.25.04.2025: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2062/2025

01. Date of offence: 18.12.2024

02. Date of Complaint : 18.12.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 18.12.2024

04. Release on bail: 19.12.2024

05. Commencement of trial: 07.10.2025

06. Closure of trial: 07.10.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 09.10.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Nelli Durgamma, W/o Maridiyya, Age 58 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Mirthipadu village, Seethanagaram Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: T.VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 09 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.

C.C.No.2062/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Nelli Durgamma, W/o Maridiyya, Age 58 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Mirthipadu village, Seethanagaram Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.M.Nagendra, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.457/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 18.12.2024 at about 11.30 A.M, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Mirthipadu Village, Seethanagaram Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found one person with a bag in her hand. On seeing the raid party, she tried to escape. On suspicion, the Inspector detained her with the help of the staff and questioned her about the contents of the mica bag. She revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of 3 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mediators, but in vain. Then, the Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 05 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.475/2024 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No. 180/2025, Sl.No. 1667, dt. 21.01.2025 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 08.05.2025, Vide Rc.No.B2/442/2024, dt.01.04.2024, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 M.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Head Constable, P&E Korukonda and LW3 P.Usha Rani, P&E Head Constable, Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which she denied the same and reported that she has no evidence in her defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda has deposed that on 18.12.2024 at about 10.00 AM, he received reliable information about selling of ID liquor at Mirthipadu Village, Seethanagaram 5 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mandal. He along with his staff proceeded towards the said address. On reaching, they noticed one person holding a mica bag. On suspicion, he detained her with the help of his staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. LW.2 returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 5 lts of ID liquor in 1 polythene cover. He drew MO.1sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted theEx.P1special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered Ex.P2FIR in Cr.No.475/2024 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3letter of advice.He received Ex.P4chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 08.05.2025, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.442/2024. He identifies the accused before the court. He forwarded her to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Mirthipadu Village and seized 05 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 05 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they 6 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 CC.No.2062/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.10.2025:J.SrinivasaBalaji,P&E-NONE- Inspector,P&Estation Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.18.12.2024: Special report Ex.P2Dt.18.12.2024: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.21.01.2025: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2058/2025

01. Date of offence: 05.03.2025

02. Date of Complaint : 05.03.2025

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 05.03.2025

04. Release on bail: 10.03.2025

05. Commencement of trial: 07.10.2025

06. Closure of trial: 07.10.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 09.10.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Mulaparthi Lakshmi, W/o Apparao, Age 49 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kanupuru village, Korukonda Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: T.VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 09 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.

C.C.No.2058/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Mulaparthi Lakshmi, W/o Apparao, Age 49 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kanupuru village, Korukonda Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.M.Nagendra, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.80/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 05.03.2025 at about 02.00 PM, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Kanupuru Village, Korukonda Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found one person with a bag in her hand. On seeing the raid party, she tried to escape. On suspicion, the Inspector detained her with the help of the staff and questioned her about the contents of the mica bag. She revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of 3 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mediators, but in vain. Then, the Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 10 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.80/2025 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No. 1247/2025, Sl.No. 9588, dt. 25.04.2025 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 07.07.2025, Vide Rc.No.B2/442/2024, dt.29.05.2025, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 M.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Head Constable, P&E Korukonda and LW3 P.Usha Rani, P&E Head Constable, Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which she denied the same and reported that she has no evidence in her defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda has deposed that on 05.03.2025 at about 02.00 PM, he received reliable information about selling of ID liquor at Kanupuru Village, Korukonda mandal.

5 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

He along with his staff proceeded towards the said address. On reaching, they noticed one person holding a mica bag. On suspicion, he detained her with the help of his staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. LW.2 returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 40 lts of ID liquor. He drew MO.1sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted theEx.P1special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered Ex.P2FIR in Cr.No.80/2025 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3letter of advice.He received Ex.P4 chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 07.07.2025, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide

RC.No.442/2024. He identifies the accused before the court. He forwarded her

to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Kanupuru Village and seized 10 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 10 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they 6 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 CC.No.2058/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.10.2025:J.SrinivasaBalaji,P&E-NONE- Inspector,P&Estation Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.05.03.2025: Special report Ex.P2Dt.05.03.2025: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.25.04.2025: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2067/2025

01. Date of offence: 11.12.2024

02. Date of Complaint : 11.12.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 11.12.2024

04. Release on bail: 17.12.2024

05. Commencement of trial: 07.10.2025

06. Closure of trial: 07.10.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 09.10.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Setti Suresh, S/o Maridiyya, Age 44 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kotikeswaram village, Korukonda Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:T.VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 09 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.

C.C.No.2067/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Setti Suresh, S/o Maridiyya, Age 44 years, C/ Settibalija, R/o Kotikeswaram village, Korukonda Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.K.Delip Kumar, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.463/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 11.12.2024 at about 07.30 P.M, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Kotikeswaram Village, Korukonda Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found one person with a bag in his hand. On seeing the raid party, he tried to escape. On suspicion, the Inspector detained him with the help of the staff and questioned him about the contents of the mica bag. The accused revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of 3 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

mediators, but in vain. Then, the P&E Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 15 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.463/2024 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No.180/2025, Sl.No. 1652, dt. 21.01.2025 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 08.05.2025, Vide Rc.No.B2/442/2024, dt.01.04.2024, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 M.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Head Constable, P&E Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported that he has no evidence in his defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the P&E Inspector, P&E station Korukonda has deposed that on 11.12.2024 at about 07.30 PM, he received reliable information about selling of ID liquor at Kotikeswaram Village, Korukonda mandal. He along with his staff proceeded towards the said address. On reaching, they noticed one person holding a mica bag. On suspicion, he 5 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

detained him with the help of his staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. LW.2 returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 15 lts of ID liquor in 3 polythene covers. He drew MO.1sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted theEx.P1special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered Ex.P2FIR in Cr.No.463/2024 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3letter of advice.He received Ex.P4chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 08.05.2025, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.442/2024. He identifies the accused before the court. He forwarded her to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Kotikeswaram Village and seized 15 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 15 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the 6 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of 7 CC.No.2067/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.10.2025:J.SrinivasaBalaji,P&E-NONE- Inspector,P&Estation Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.11.12.2024: Special report Ex.P2Dt.11.12.2024: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.21.01.2025: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- T.V.Raghavendra Rao

IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.