Sri T. Veera Raghavendra Rao

1C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair//

FORM A

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: YELLAMANCHILI

Present :- T . Veera raghavendra Rao, Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili

Monday, the 10th day of January, 2025

C.C.No. 617/2019

ComplainantState of Sub- Inspector of Police, Rambilli P.S.

Represented byPublic Prosecutor

AccusedAkula Srinu, S/o.Butchi, Driver of Bolero Van AP 05 TD 4065, D.No.3-29-6, Markandarajupeta Village, Tuni, East Godavari District. Represented bySri Lalam Venkata Ramana Murthy counsel

for the accused

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

1.The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that he being the driver of Crime vehicle bearing Regd. No. AP 05 TD 4065 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed Seera Demudu, S/o.China Pydayya when he was proceeding on BT Road at Venkatapuram Village of Rambilli Mandal as a result the deceased died on the spot. Thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet runs like this:

On 01-04-2019 at 09:00 hrs., L.W.01 Seera Sanyasirao, s/o Demudu of

Venkatarapuram (v) presented a report stating that today i.e., 01-04-2019 morning 2C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair// his father Seera Demudu s/o China Pydayya, left their house situated at

Venkatapuram (v) to proceed to their fields and at about 0530 hrs., while crossing the road at Ramalayam at Venkatapuram junction, one Bolero van bearing

Regd.No.AP-05-TD4065 came from Atchuthapuram side and proceeding towards

Yellamanchili side and its driver driven it at a high speed rashly and negligently and dashed his father. Due to the hit, his father was fell down and sustained fatal bleeding injury on the rear side of his head and also got fracture at the right shoulder and caused severe bleeding injury, the first toe finger of his left leg and at the index finger also he sustained injuries. In addition to that he also sustained injuries on the left knee, right elbow and on the right side of abdomen. Immediately they contacted 108 Ambulance. When the Ambulance staff came and examined his father declared him as dead. Hence he requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the above report, L.W.13/P.Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao has registered a case in Cr.No.131/2019 u/s 304-A IPC of Rambilli P.S. on 01.04.2019 at 0900 hrs and Investigated info. During the course of his investigation,

L.W.13/P.Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao visited the scene of offence, examined the same in the presence of two mediators i.e., L.Ws. 7 and 8 namely K.Tatabbai and

Ch.Venkateswaramma and prepared an Observation Report on 01-04-2019 from 0910 hrs. to 0930 hrs. L.W.13 also took photos and prepared Rough Sketch.

L.W.12/P.Amrutha Kiran Kumari held inquest over the dead body from 0930 hrs to 11.30 hrs. On 01-04-2019 in the presence of LWs. 1 to 5 i.e., Seera Sanyasirao,

Seera Pydiraju, Seera Peda Sanyasi Rao, Seera Ramu, Killada Appalanaidu and

Panchayatdars i.e., L.ws 9 and 10 namely D.Surya Chandra Rao and

D.Ranganayakulu. L.W.13/P.Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao also examined and recorded the statements of LWs. 1 to 5. L.W.13 recorded the verdict of the Panchayatdars.

After due inquest L.w.13 sent the dead body to CHC Yellamanchili for autopsy. On 09.04.2019 L.w.14/V.Chakradhar Rao served notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. and examined the owner of the vehicle as LW-06/Chodisetti Krishna. L.W.13 sent the

Crime Vehicle to the RIO, Anakapalli for Inspection.L.W.11/Dr.Vinod Kumar, the 3C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair//

Medical Officer, who conducted P.M. Examination issued P.M.Certificate opining that "the death occurred before 06 hours and due to head injury C Poly Trauma,

L.W.12/P.Amrutha Kiran Kumari, the M.V.I., Anakapalli who inspected the Crime

Vehicle issued opinion stating that "the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle" After completion of investigation,

LW.14/V.Chakradhara Rao filed the Charge sheet.

3. On perusal of the record, this Court took cognizance of the offence under

Sections 304(A) IPC against the accused.

4.Accused was present before the court, and copies of all the documents, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Consequent upon examination of the accused under section 251 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and having recorded his pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried for the offences under section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, he was put to face the trial for the said offence.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to PW.8 and exhibited, documents Ex.P.1 to P.8.

6.Having gone through the evidence, oral and documentary placed on record, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

7.After having heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned Counsel for the accused, the following points that germane for determination are:

4C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair// (1) Whether the prosecution established the identity of the accused?

(2) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the act of rash or negligent driving by the Accused?

(3) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences under section 304- A of the Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS 1 to 3 :- 1. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has chosen to examine PW.1 to 8.

2. Pointedly, the edifice of the case of prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.W.1 to PW4 and PW8.

3. PW1 in his chief examination deposes that LW-2 is his brother. LW3 is his cousin. The deceased is his father. On 01.04.2019 at about 5.30 am, his father started from his house so as to go to the agricultural fields, when he was in his house at Venkatapuram, he listen to a sound and then he came out of his house and found that a Bolera van dashed against his father, his father fell on the road. His father sustained head injury and also received other injuries all over his body and some passers called 108 Ambulance and the personnel of the 108 Ambulance declared that his father was dead. He gave a report to the Rambilli PS. He put his signature on the report and he does not know the contents of it.

In cross examination the PW1 deposed as follows:

“I came out of my house after 5 minutes from the incident.

There is a distance only 100 meters from my house to the

scene of offence. When I was reached, my father was fell

on the road and some unknown persons made a call to the

108 Ambulance” 5C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair//

4.PW2 who is the brother of the PW1 corroborated in all aspects in chief as well as cross.

The PW3 in his cross examination testified that

“I did not witness the accident and I do not know the contents of the

Ex.P1. I do not know the facts of my statement”.

The PW4 in his cross examination testified that

“The accident was occurred in my presence and I witnessed the same.

I do not know the driver of the van. I could not recollect the van

registration number”.

5.On careful reading, the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 are no way helpful to the prosecution why because they neither whispered about the presence of accused at the time of accident nor his rash or negligent act of driving of crime vehicle.

6.PW.5, who is the inquestdar and mediator categorically deposed that the inquest was conducted in his presence and there is no dispute on it.

7.The remains testimony of official witnesses of the case i.e., PW.6, who is the medical officer testified that he conduct the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute in that regard.

8.The remains testimony of PW7 & 8, who are the investigating officers deposed in chief replica of their investigation and filing of charge sheet.

9.Except for the evidence of official witness, some parts of the evidence of

PW.1 to 4, none supported the case of the prosecution. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased. In the absence of other connecting substantial material facts and circumstances, which connect the accused with the alleged perpetration of the crime, in that view, the prosecution cannot stand on its legs to substantiate its case. For the foregoing reasons, and in the light of infirmities and absence of 6C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair// other evidence, available on record, incriminating the accused for the offence pun- ishable under section 304-A I.P.C. this Court safely holding that the evidence of

PW.1 to 8 are unworthy of credence. Accordingly the points are answered in- favour of accused.

10.On an earnest consideration of the material placed on record and having made appreciation of the same in proper perspective, the court is of the consid- ered view that the evidence on record falls far short of the required proof in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him. Indeed, no incriminating material is there to point out the guilt of the accused and connect him to the alleged perpetration of the crime. Consequently, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Sections 304(A) of I.P.C.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304(A) of I.P.C and is acquitted under Section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code and after that stands canceled. No property is produced hence no order to that effect.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10 th day of January, 2024.

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra rao Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yellamanchili.

FORM B

Date of Offence01.04.2019

Date of FIR01.04.2019

Date of Charge Sheet21.05.2019

Date of Framing of Charges 12.10.2021 7C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair//

Date of Commencement of 21.11.2022 evidence

Date of which Judgment is ---- reserved

Date of the Judgment10.01.2025

Date of Sentencing order, if - any

Accused Details

RaName ofDate ofDate ofOffencesWhetherSentencPeriod of nkAccused Arrest Release onchargedAcquittedeDetention ofBail with orImposeUndergo theconvicted d ne during AcTrial for cupurpose seof section d 428 Cr.P.C 1Akkula Srinu 41-A41-A304-A ofAcquittal--– Cr.P.CCr.P.CIPC NoticeNotice

FORM C

LIST OF PROSEUCTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RankName(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW1 Sri Seera Sanyasi Rao Defacto complainant

PW2 Sri Seera PydirajuProsecution witness

PW3 Sri Ch Pedda Sanyasi RaoProsecution witness

PW4 Sri K TatabbaiProsecution witness

PW5 Sri Dhooli Surya Chandra Rao Prosecution witness

PW6 Dr.M Vinod Medical Officer

PW7 Sri P.CH Uma Maheswara rao Head Constable

PW8 Sri V Chakradara raoMVI Officer 8C.C.617/19 dt.10.01.2025 .

//Fair//

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

DW1 None None

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

CW1NoneNone

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1

Ex.P2Scene observation report

Ex.P3Inquest report

Ex.P4Postmortem report

Ex.P5Report

Ex.P6 First Information Report

Ex.P7Rough sketch

Ex.P8M.V.I. Report

For Defence

Ex.Nil

Material Objects

Nil

Sd/ T Veera raghavendra Rao Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Yellamanchili.

//Fair// 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Junior Division): YELLAMANCHILI.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.99/2023

1.Date of offence01-09-2021

2.Date of Report or complaint01-09-2021

3.Date of taken on file21-03-2023

4.Date of apprehension of accused01-09-2021

5.Date of release on bail09-09-2021

6.Date of commencement of trial01-04-2025

7.Date of close of trial02-04-2025

8.Date of Sentence or Order04-04-2025 State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of

9.Complainant Payakaraopeta Police Station,

Sri ,Masa Sattibabu, S/o Subba Rao , aged 44 years, R/o Artlakota Village of 10Description of accused Payakaraopeta Mandal u/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 11Section of Law

Pleaded not guilty. 12Plea of Accused 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.PC. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : Police failed to produce witnesses on in-time.

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

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra Rao Addl Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Yellamanchili //Fair// 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE: (Junior Division)

YELLAMANCHILI

Present: T.Veera Raghavendra Rao,

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Yellamanchili .

Friday, this the 4 th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case. No.99 of 2023

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of Yellamanchili Police

..Complainant

Station, Payakaraopeta

And:

Sri ,Masa Sattibabu, S/o Subba Rao , aged 44 years, R/o Artlakota Village of Payakaraopeta Mandal . Accused…….

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06-01-2025 in the presence of Ld. APP, Smt.Yasmin Sultana for the State and Sri Y.Raju Babu Ld.

Counsel for Accused. Upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special

Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police Station, filed Chargesheet against the

Accused in Crime No 247 of 2020 the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act., with the following allegations:

//Fair// 3

2.On 01-09-2021, at about 9.00 hrs. at the Vacant site , Near Bricks butty in the east side of Artlakota Village of Payakaraopeta, LW3/SI of police along with

Lws 1 and 2 of Special Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police Station, found the Accused is in possession of 05 liters of ID arrack without valid permit or license.

He made efforts to secure mediators, but in vain. Then, they seized the 05 liters of ID arrack, drawn 250 ml as samples for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said Occurrence report, Sub

Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.247 of 2020 under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. and produced the Accused before the Court for judicial remand. After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report opining that sample is Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to him in Telugu the Charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act., he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3 and M.O .1. The evidence of L.W2 and LW4 were given up by the Ld.APP. Who reported no further evidence Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

//Fair// 4

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition

Act. beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O1. PW1 is the Constable and PW2 is the

Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police

Station, Ex.P1 is occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information Report and Ex.P3 is

Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is sample of seized contraband.

11.According to Pws 1 and 2 on 01-09-2021, at about 9:00 hrs. they got credible information. On such information themselves along with other staff members proceeded towards vacant site, Bricks Butty in the east side of Artlakota Village of

Payakaraopeta, and found that a person tried to escape on seeing them. They caught hold of him i.e., the Accused in this case. On searching, they found 05 liters of ID arrack. They arrested the Accused and seized 05 liters of ID arrack under the cover of Ex.P1 Occurrence Report. He lifted M.O.1 180 ml sample bottle. Later they returned to the station and basing on the Ex.P1, he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.247/2020 under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act, and issued Ex.P2

FIR. During the course of investigation, he recorded 161 Cr.PC statement and sent a sample for Chemical analysis and received Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed Chargesheet against the accused.

//Fair// 5

12. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from his possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e.,05 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, he evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.W.1 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

13.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non availability, any other locality must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed.

Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

14.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

//Fair// 6

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-III of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of April, 2025 .

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra Rao

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)CUM

. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 N.Ramesh -NONE – P.W.2 Sri M Rameswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex.P.1: is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P.2: is the First Information Report. Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

M.O.1 is the ID arrack 250 ml

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra Rao

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLAMANCHILI.

//Fair// 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Junior Division): YELLAMANCHILI.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.1251/2022

1.Date of offence28-04-2020

2.Date of Report or complaint28-04-2020

3.Date of taken on file27-10-2022

4.Date of apprehension of accused28-04-2020

5.Date of release on bail41-A Cr.PC Notice

6.Date of commencement of trial01-04-2025

7.Date of close of trial02-04-2025

8.Date of Sentence or Order04-04-2025 State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of

9.Complainant Payakaraopeta Police Station,

Smt Koda Mahankalamma, W/o Jagga Rao , aged 44 years, R/o Bangarammapeta Village 10Description of accused of Payakaraopeta 11Section of Law u/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty. 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.PC. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : Police failed to produce witnesses on in-time. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra Rao Addl Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Yellamanchili //Fair// 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE: (Junior Division)

YELLAMANCHILI

Present: T.Veera Raghavendra Rao,

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Yellamanchili .

Friday, this the 4 th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case. No.1251 of 2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of Yellamanchili Police

..Complainant

Station, Payakaraopeta

And:

Smt Koda Mahankalamma, W/o Jagga Rao , aged 44 years, R/o Bangarammapeta Village of Payakaraopeta . Accused…….

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03-04-2025 in the presence of Ld. APP, Smt.Yasmin Sultana for the State and Sri B.H.O.V Siva Ld.

Counsel for Accused. Upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special

Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police Station, filed Chargesheet against the

Accused in Crime No 122 of 2020 the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act., with the following allegations:

2.On 28-04-2020, at about 16.00 hrs. at Coconut Garden,

Bangarammapeta Village of Nakkapalli Mandal, LW3/SI of police along with his //Fair// 3 staff LW1 and 3 of Special Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police Station, found the Accused is in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack without valid permit or license. He made efforts to secure mediators, but in vain. Then, they seized the 10 liters of ID arrack, drawn 250 ml as samples for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said Occurrence report, Sub Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.122 of 2020 under

Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. and produced the Accused before the

Court for judicial remand. After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report opining that sample is Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to her in Telugu the Charge levelled against her for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act., she denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3 and M.O .1. The evidence of L.W2, LW4 and LW5 were given up by the Ld.APP. Who reported no further evidence Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to her in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in //Fair// 4 the evidence of the prosecution, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition

Act. beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O1. PW1 is the Constable and PW2 is the

Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau of Payakaraopeta Police

Station, Ex.P1 is occurence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information Report and Ex.P3 is

Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is sample of seized contraband.

11.According to Pws 1 and 2 on 28-04-2020, at about 16:00 hrs. they got credible information. On such information themselves along with other staff members proceeded towards Coconut Garden, Bangarammapeta Village of Nakkapalli, and found that a person tried to escape on seeing them. They caught hold of her i.e., the Accused in this case. On searching, they found 10 liters of ID arrack. They arrested the Accused and seized 10 liters of ID arrack under the cover of Ex.P1

Occurrence Report. He lifted M.O.1 180 ml sample bottle. Later they returned to the station and basing on the Ex.P1, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.122/2020 under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act, and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, he recorded 161 Cr.PC statement and sent a sample for

Chemical analysis and received Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed Chargesheet against the accused.

//Fair// 5

12. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from her possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e.,10 liters of ID arrack from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.W.1 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

13.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non availability, any other locality must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed.

Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

14.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

//Fair// 6

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-III of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of April, 2025 .

Sd/ T Veera Raghavendra Rao

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)CUM

. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 N Ramesh -NONE – P.W.2 Sri M Rameswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex.P.1: is the Occurence Report. Ex.P.2: is the First Information Report. Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

M.O.1 is the ID arrack 250 ml

Sd/ T. Veera Raghavendra Rao

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLAMANCHILI.

//Fair// 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Junior Division):

YELLAMANCHILI.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.1308/2024

1.Date of offence12-02-2021

2.Date of Report or complaint12-02-2021

3.Date of taken on file02-12-2024

4.Date of apprehension of accused12-02-2021

5.Date of release on bail16-02-2021

6.Date of commencement of trial01-04-2025

7.Date of close of trial03-04-2025

8.Date of Sentence or Order04-04-2025

9.Complainant State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P & E Police Station, PR Peta Smt. Jithuka Varalakshmi, W/o late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o 10Description of accused H.No. 27-18-18, Kallupakalu , Durgalamma temple, Purna Market, Visakhapatnam 11Section of Law u/Sec. 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. 12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty. 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.PC. M.O 1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : Police failed to produce witnesses on time.

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

Sd/ T. Veera Raghavendra Rao Addl Civil Judge(JD) cum Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Yellamanchili //Fair// 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Junior Division):

YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Sri Veera Raghavendra Rao T, Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Yellamanchili .

Friday, this the 04 th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case. No.1308 of 2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Police Station,

..Complainant

Payakaraopeta

And:

Smt. Jithuka Varalakshmi, W/o late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o H.No. 27-18-18, Kallupakalu , Durgalamma temple, Purna Market, Visakhapatnam . Accused…….

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03-04-2025 in the presence of Ld. APP, Smt.Yasmin Sultana for the State and Sri I R Gangadhar and

Sri I.Avinash Ld. Counsels for Accused. Upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Police

Station, filed Chargesheet against the Accused in Crime No.233 of 2019 the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, with the following allegations:

//Fair// 3

2.On 12-11-2022, at about 09.45 hrs. at Vacant site beside the bridge in

Godicherla Village of Nakkapalli Mandal, LW3/ SI of police along with Lws 1 and 2 of SEB Police Station, Payakaraopeta, found the Accused is in possession of 07 nip liquor bottles i.e., Good day Prestige Whisky each 180 ml without valid permit or license. He made efforts to secure mediators, but in vain. Then, they seized the 07 liquor bottles, drawn 180 ml one bottle as samples for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said

Occurrence report, Sub Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.53 of 2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act and produced the Accused before the Court for judicial remand. After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report opining that samples are Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation he filed chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused is examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code in vernacular language, by explaining to her in Telugu the Charge levelled against her for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act, she denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3 and M.O 1. The evidence of L.W1,LW4 and LW5 were given up by the Ld.APP. Who reported no further evidence Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

//Fair// 4

7.When the accused is examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to her in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond

all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O 1, PW1 is the constable and PW2 is the Sub

Inspector of Police, SEB Police Station, Payakaraopeta. Ex.P1 is Occurrence

Report. Ex.P2 is First Information Report and Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis report.

M.O1 is sample of seized contraband.

11.According to Pws 1 and 2 on 12-03-2021, at about 09:45 hrs. they got credible information. On such information himself along with other staff members proceeded towards Vacant site beside the bridge in Godicherla Village of Nakkapalli

Mandal and found that one person tried to escape on seeing them. They caught hold of him i.e., the Accused in this case. On searching, they found 07 liquor bottles.

They arrested the Accused and seized 07 liquor bottles under the cover of Ex.P1

Occurrence Report. He lifted M.O.1 180 ml sample bottles. Later they returned to the station and basing on the Ex.P1, PW2 registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.53/2021 under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, he recorded 161 Cr.PC statement and sent a sample for

Chemical analysis and received Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

//Fair// 5

12. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused is confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from her possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e.,07 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.W.1 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

13.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non availability, any other locality must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed.

Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

14.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

//Fair// 6

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.PC. M.O 1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-III of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/ T. Veera Raghavendra Rao

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 Smt L Uma Devi PW 2: Sri M Rameswara rao -NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex.P.1: is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P.2: is the First Information Report. Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

M.O.1 is the Good day Prestige Whisky 180 ml

Sd/ T. Veera Raghavendra Rao Addl Civil Judge(Junior Division) cum Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Yellamanchili

C.C 13/2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE CUM CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

YELLAMANCHILI.

PRESENT : SRI. VEERA RAGHAVENDRA RAO T,

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JUNIOR DIVISION)

YELLAMANCHILI.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

C.C.No.13/2022

Between: Surakasulu Gurunadha Rao, S/o. Ramana, aged about 34 years, Ramalayam Street, Chandanada Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Complainant.

And :

1) V.G. Engineering Workds, Rep., by its Proprietor, Veernaa Venkatesu @ Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Nancharaiah, Plot No.175, APIIC, IDA Parawada, Edulapaka Bonangi, Parawada Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District – 531021.

2) Veernaala Venkatesu @ Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Nancharaiah, aged about 45 years, N.V. Colony, Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District - 534460.

... Accused.

This C.C is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. K.N.Durga Prasad, Advocate for Complainant and none were appeared on behalf of Accused and the Court made the following :

:: O R D E R ::

This petition filed Under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., and offence under section 138 R/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act., by the complainant against the Accused No1 and 2 prays to register the complaint and initiate action against the accused No.1 and 2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act., 1881 and both the accused may be summoned, tried and consequently be punished for the offence committed by him and award double the cheque amount

C.C 13/2022 //2// and order for payment of compensation out of the fine amount under section 357 of Cr.P.C., to the Complaianant.

Complaianant absent. Process not paid waited till 2.00 P.M., No representation on behalf of the Complaianant and inspite of several opportunites, the complainant or his counsel not turned up and failed to pay the process and in view of the same. This court is inclined to dismiss the complaint for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Complainant : Accused :

--- NIL ------- NIL ----

ADMC/YELM.