Sri U.U.Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri U.U.Prasad

Special Judge for the trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, 28 th day of March 2024

Calendar Case No.149/2018

Between:­ 

The State Represented by Range Inspector­II, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram

East Godavari District. ... Complainant.

AND

1. Kunatharaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju @ Chanti Raju, Age 58 years, S/o Narasimha Murthy Raju, D.No.5­40/1, besides Pattabirama Petrol Bunk, Sakhinetipalli Road, Malikipuram, East Godavari District. (leader of Malikipuram Liquor Group)

2. Karri Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Murthy, Age 59 years, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Razole, East Godavari District. (Now retired from service)

3. Mamidala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Suribabu, Age 46 years, N/o Gurajanapalli Village, R/o: D.No.67­23­1/A, Nagamalli Thota Colony, Kakinada­3, East Godavari District. (leader of S.U.S. Liquor Group)

4. Kunareddy Rama Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 56 years, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kakinada North, East Godavari District. … Accused 

This case came up on 22.03.2024 for a final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State­Complainant and Sri Ch. Venkateswarlu and Sri K. Hemanth Srinivas, Advocates for Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Range Inspector­II, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.3/RCO­RJY/2012 charged U/Sec.13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 41 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under Rule 14 (9) of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005 against Accused Nos.2 and 4 and charged

U/Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act and section 120­B of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 41 of 2

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under Rule 14 (9) of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005 against

Accused Nos.1 and 3 stating that in this case Accused No.1 is the leader of

Malikipuram Liquor Syndicate, Accused No.3 is the leader of S.U.S. Liquor

Syndicate. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are the Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of

Razole and Kakinada respectively within their jurisdiction the wine shops and the syndicate office are situated. Accused Nos.1 and 3 conspired with Accused

Nos.2 and 4 respectively and with the consent of Accused Nos.2 and 4,

Accused Nos.1 and 3 formed themselves into syndicate separately in their respective jurisdiction and ran the wine shops violating the A.P. Excise Rules i.e., MRP rates and selling cheap liquor, maintaining illegal belt shops and not maintaining prescribed timings and sell loose liquor for consumption. Further, they developed illegal nexus with the Excise Officials, Police and others to make illegal liquor business. As per the records seized in the syndicate office, the

Excise Officials received the bribe amount and accordingly, Accused Officers

Nos.2 and 4 being public servants abused their official position by resorting to corrupt and illegal means and received the bribe amount as illegal gratification from said Liquor Syndicates.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are:

In the instant case, there are two independent liquor syndicates, one is owned by A1 within the jurisdiction of Accused No.2/Excise Inspector Razole and another is owned by A3 within the jurisdiction of Accused No.4/Excise

Inspector Kakinada North.

(a).On reliable information that several irregularities have taken place in the auction process of A4 wine shops in the East Godavari District, searches were conducted at the office of the Excise Superintendents at Amalapuram,

Kakinada and Rajahmundry on 05.03.2012 and records pertaining to the auction of A4 wine shops for the Excise years 2010­12 were seized under cover of mediators report in Cr. No.2/RCO­RJY/2012 by the Investigating Officers in the presence of mediators and seized records were scrutinized and further obtained reports from Collectors, East and West Godavari register administrator Yanam which revealed that there were 555, A4 wine shops in

East Godavari District and the successful bidders bid huge amounts for obtaining the A4 wine shops and Accused No. 2 being Excise Inspector Razole, fail to take action. Based on the occurrence report consequently, on the 3 instructions of the DG, ACB, Hyderabad vide Memo No.10/DG­ACB/2012

dated 14.04.2012, a case in Cr. No.3/RCO­RJY/2012 was registered on

15.04.2012 by the Investigating Officer and during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer secured the presence of witnesses at IML

Depot, Amalapuram, examined them and recorded their statements who were acquainted with the liquor business.

The record disclose that out of 555 license holders of A4 wine shops, 378 license holders possessed white ration cards, as per the information submitted by the District Collector, East Godavari and West Godavari. It seems that there are white ration card holders who acted as binamis on behalf of others. On examination, the witnesses have clearly stated that A1 conducted liquor business by obtaining A4 licenses with BPL card holders by grossly violating

Excise Rules & Laws, paid mamools to A.O.2 and others to overlook their irregularities in the business by violations under Excise Act/Rules. A1 had conspired with A.O.2 and others, paid mamools in order to induce them to overlook the omissions and commissions pertaining to the Excise Act, Rules and conditions made by the licenses and moreover, the A1 had abetted and aided in the commission of the offences habitually by A.O.2 and others by paying monthly mamools. Accordingly, A1 maintained the Malikipuram liquor syndicate for 44 wine shops by engaging L.W. 21 and 80. A1 filed tenders and obtained a license in the name of 30 persons as binamis. The other 14 shops are not binamis

The A.O.2 by corrupt and illegal means allowed the licenses to run 463 belt shops (unlicensed shops) within the Excise Station Limits and further, it disclosed that A.O.2 has failed to verify properly the A1 to A3 forms submitted by the A1 in the names of BPL Card holders and allowed the A1 to obtain licenses in the names of BPL Cardholders, who are binamis of A1. Further,

A.O.2 allowed the licensees to sell the liquor over and above the MRP rates, to run the business beyond the prescribed business hours and allowed the sale of loose liquor for consumption at the above wine shops without license/permission and thereby caused pecuniary advantage to himself and to the owners of the wine shops of the liquor group of A1.

There is one outgoing call from A.O.2 to A1. Similarly, there are 15 incoming/outgoing calls between A.O.2 and P.W.93/Manager of the syndicate of A.1 The call details of A.O.2 with A1 and P.W.93 that A.O.2 is in regular contact with A1 and others of the syndicate and colluded in allowing 4 irregularities in the liquor business of the syndicate of A1. The call details furnished by LW.147 between A1 and A2 establish a Nexus between them. The report submitted by Tahsildar discloses that the property furnished is not genuine. The details furnished by the bank manager disclosed that there was a meagre amount in their accounts and they were in a weak financial state. The

IT returns furnished by the Income Tax Department, show the PAN Cards were obtained recently. Further, the information submitted by Tahsildar shows that there were belt shops and Accused No.1 colluded with Excise Officials. Further,

A1 stood as surety to other shops. The jurisdiction of Excise SHO, Razole where A.O.2 worked as Proh. & Excise SHO also covers the area of operation of other informal liquor associates (syndicates). A.O.2 being a public servant abused his official position by corrupt and illegal means, conspired with a common intention with A1, and received mamools as illegal gratification for overlooking the contraventions of the Excise Laws and rules committed by the liquor trader. Thus A.O.2, who worked as SHO, Razole abused his official position and received mamools from A1, the liquor group leader causing pecuniary advantage for himself and others without any public interest. A1 obtained A4's wine shops in the name of binamis and conducted business by grossly violating the excise laws & rules, conditions of the license and developed nexus with A.O.2, paid mamools in order to induce them to overlook the omissions and commissions, abetted and aided in the commission of the offences habitually. A1 is a private person and no prosecution sanction order is required for his prosecution. A.O.2 was retired from service on 30.06.2011 on attaining superannuation as such no prosecution sanction order is required for his prosecution.

(b). On reliable information that several irregularities have taken place in the auction process of A4 wine shops in the East Godavari District, searches were conducted at the office of the Excise Superintendents at Amalapuram,

Kakinada and Rajahmundry on 05.03.2012 and records pertaining to the auction of A4 wine shops for the Excise years 2010­12 were seized under cover of mediators report in Cr. No.2/RCO­RJY/2012 by the Investigating Officers in the presence of mediators and seized records were scrutinized and further obtained reports from Collectors, East and West Godavari register administrator Yanam, which revealed that there were 555, A4 wine shops in

East Godavari District and the successful bidders bid huge amounts for obtaining the A4 wine shops and Accused No. 4 being Excise Inspector

Kakinada, fail to take action. Based on the occurrence report consequently, on 5 the instructions of the DG, ACB, Hyderabad vide Memo No.10/DG­ACB/2012

dated 14.04.2012, a case in Cr. No.3/RCO­RJY/2012 was registered on

15.04.2012 by the Investigating Officer and during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer secured the presence of witnesses at IML

Depot, Amalapuram, examined them and recorded their statements who were acquainted with the liquor business.

The record disclose that out of 555 license holders of A4 wine shops, 378 license holders possessed white ration cards, as per the information submitted by the District Collector, East Godavari and West Godavari. It seems that there are white ration card holders who acted as binamis on behalf of others. On examination, the witnesses have clearly stated that A3 conducted liquor business by obtaining A4 licenses with BPL card holders by grossly violating

Excise Rules & Laws, paid mamools to A.O.2 and others to overlook their irregularities in the business by violations under Excise Act/Rules. A3 had conspired with A.O.4 and others, paid mamools in order to induce them to overlook the omissions and commissions pertaining to the Excise Act, Rules and conditions made by the licenses and moreover, the A1 had abetted and aided in the commission of the offences habitually by A.O.4 and others by paying monthly mamools. Accordingly, A3 maintained the Sri Uma Someswara (SUS) liquor syndicate for 27 wine shops by engaging L.W. 94 and 93. A1 filed tenders and obtained the license in the name of 18 persons as binamis. The other 9 shops are not binamis. The A3 got opened bank accounts in the name of binamis and other licenses.

Accused No.3 prepared license files with his handwriting in tender forms of 21 wine shops, hence the same established liquor syndicate. FSL report proves that the tender forms written by Accused No 3.

The A.O.2 by corrupt and illegal means allowed the licensees to run 463 belt shops (unlicensed shops) within the Excise Station Limits and further, it disclosed that A.O.2 has failed to verify properly the A1 to A3 forms submitted by the A1 in the names of BPL Card holders and allowed the A1 to obtain licenses in the names of BPL Cardholders, who are binamies of A1. Further,

A.O.2 allowed the licensees to sell the liquor over and above the MRP rates, to run the business beyond the prescribed business hours and allowed the sale of loose liquor for consumption at the above wine shops without license/permission and thereby caused pecuniary advantage to himself and to the owners of the wine shops of the liquor group of A1.

6

The call details furnished by LW. 121 between A3 and A4 establish a

Nexus between them. The report submitted by Tahsildar discloses that the property furnished is not genuine. The details furnished by the bank manager disclose there were meagre amounts in the accounts and they were having weak finance status. The IT returns furnished by L.W. 1 show the PAN Cards were obtained recently. Further, the information submitted by Tahsildar shows that there were belt shops and Accused No. 3 colluded with Excise Officials.

Further, A3 stood as surety to other shops. The jurisdiction of Excise SHO,

Kakinada where A.O.4 worked as Proh. & Excise SHO also covers the area of operation of other informal liquor associates (syndicates). A.O.4 being a public servant abused his official position by corrupt and illegal means, conspired with a common intention with A3, and received mamools as illegal gratification for overlooking the contraventions of the Excise Laws and rules committed by the liquor trader. Thus A.O.4, who worked as SHO, Kakinada abused his official position and received mamools from A1, the liquor group leader causing pecuniary advantage for himself and others without any public interest. A3 obtained A4 licenses with binami persons conducted business by grossly violating the excise laws & rules, conditions of the license and developed nexus with A.O.2, paid mamools in order to induce them to overlook the omissions and commissions, abetted and aided in the commission of the offences habitually. A3 is the private person and no prosecution sanction order is required for his prosecution and sanction was obtained in G.O.Ms No. 200, dated. 16.05.2014 to prosecute Accused No. 4.

3.Initially ACB, Rajamahundry filed a Charge sheet against A1 and A2 only and the same case was taken on file punishable under sections 12,14 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act against the Accused No.1 and offences punishable under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Accused No.2. Subsequently, ACB Police filed Additional charge sheet against A3 and A4, before ACB Court, Vijayawada. On hearing prosecution, the

Additional charge sheet against A3 and A4 were also taken cognizance for the

offences mentioned above. Summons were served on the Accused. On the appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished to them.

4.The Accused 1 to 4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein, they denied the commission of offence, whereupon charges U/Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code 7 r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec.120­B of the

Indian Penal Code r/w section 41 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under Rule 14 (9) of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005 against Accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sec.13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.41 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under Rule 14 (9) of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005 against Accused Nos.2 and 4.

5.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 216 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P397 and Ex.X1 were marked. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

Chelluboina Shanmukha Rao (L.W.92), Rudraraju Venkata Satya

Suryanarayana Raju (L.W.100), Mutyala Rajendra Prasad (L.W.152),

K.Swamynathan (L.W.154), Chikkam Sridevi (L.W.159), Vanamadi Veerababu (L.W.160), Ponnam Venkata Subba Rao (L.W.188).

6.On the closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence leveled against them and marked Exs.D1 and D2 on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides. Special Public Prosecution argued that the present case has been registered against Accused license holders and Excise inspectors. Accused No.1 being a license holder, has been maintaining a syndicate consisting of 44 shops situated within the territorial limits of

Accused No.2/Excise Inspector. Accused No. 1 with the help of other license holders and employees, used to collect amounts and distribute same to the public servants of various departments i.e., Law and Order police and Excise

Police etc. to ignore violations of Excise Laws i.e., sale of liquor exceeding MRP rates, beyond stipulated business hours, allowing the consumers to drink at shops, and illegally maintaining belt shops. During the course of the

Investigation, the Investigating Officer seized relevant records. In the presence of the mediators and further secured information from MROs, VROs the

Income Tax department etc., to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamis of A1. Further, the Investigating Officer examined

Nowkarnamas and other witnesses and recorded their statements to prove that

Accused No.1 maintained a syndicate and paid mamools/bribes to the Excise

Officials. Similarly, the A3 license holder maintained 27 shops and colluded with the Excise Inspector with A4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses PW.1 to 216. Though the witnesses i.e., Nowkarnamas shop landlords etc., did not support the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer and mediators supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, the prosecution proved its case. In addition to the charges framed against the accused, the

Accused is liable for the offence U/Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Counsel for the defence argued that though the investigating officers held such and seized records in the presence of the mediators, none of the records disclosed that Accused No.1 has been running a syndicate office with the 44 wine shops. Similarly, A3 maintained 27 wine shops. The Nowkarnamas, landlords, and neighbours examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case but they turned hostile. Though the prosecution examined revenue officials, VROs, Bank Officials, Income Tax Officials etc., and marked the documents to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamis of A1 and A2, the evidence of those witnesses and documents do not disclose how the A1 and A2 are related to the other alleged binami shops and further that evidence do not prove offence against A1 colluded with

Excise Inspector/A2 and A3 with A4. Similarly, the evidence of revenue officials and VROs to prove the existence of belt shops within the jurisdiction of the

Excise Inspector, the cross­examination of those witnesses disclose that the witnesses have not initiated any criminal action against belt shop owners and accordingly the evidence does not prove the involvement of Accused No.1 and

Excise Inspector/A2 and similarly A3 and A4. In addition, there is no evidence proving that Excise Inspector/A2 and A4 received bribes from Accused No. 1 and A3 respectively for allowing them to maintain the syndicate and further maintain wine shops beyond business hours, sale of liquor over the MRP price etc., violating the Excise Laws. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Points for determination: As the offences allegedly committed by A1 and A2 on one side and A3 and A4 on the other side in their different jurisdictions and the offences are different to each other side, I am inclined to discuss and conclude the offences allegedly committed by A1 and A2 initially and A3 and A4 later.

I.(A) Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A1 with the assistance of the A4 shops license holder in Malikiupuram?

9 (B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.2/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.1 and A2 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(C) Whether A1 got paid mamools to Accused No.2/Excise Inspector and other officials so as to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2?

II.(A) Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A3 with the assistance of A4 shop license holders in Kakinada?

(B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.4/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.3 and 4 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(C) Whether A3 got paid mamools to Accused No.4/Excise Inspector and other officials so as to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A3 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A4?

9.Regarding the offence allegedly committed by A1 in the name of the

Malikipuram syndicate and A2 being a public servant at Razole, I am inclined to discuss and conclude initially.

Point 

I. (A). Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of

A1 with the assistance of A4 shop license holders in Malikiupuram?

As per the prosecution case, the ACB Inspector along with mediators held a search in the Excise Superintendent's office in Amalapuram on 05.03.2012 and seized files of 234 wine shops and other records under the cover of the mediator's report. Then, with the permission of DG. ACB, 10

Hyderabad regarding binami shops maintained by A1 with the collusion of

Excise Inspector/A2, registered FIR Crime No.3/RCO­RJY/2012 on 15.04.2012 during the course of the investigation the inspector held a search in IML depot

Amalapuram and seized out ward registers and attendance registers i.e., Ex.

P80 to 84. The inspector examined Depot Manager G. Shyamalarao and he stated that there are 5 Excise circles and out of 234 GSL wine shops, 54 wine shops are under Ramachandrapuram Excise circle and the remaining 180 shops are taking stocks from IML Depot Amalapuram. Out of 180 wine shops, 154 wine shops are being run by 18 liquor syndicates. He gave details of 18 syndicates being maintained by several persons including Accused No.1. As per the details, Accused No.1 is maintaining for Malkipuram syndicate for 44 shops with his manager by Peddabbulu Tekisetti Palam/ P.W. 93 and stock lifted by D. Satyanarayana/L.W.80 (Not examined since died). All the above proceedings were mentioned in the mediator report Ex. P79. Later investigation officer secured details of license holders from the District collector office, East

Godavari and West Godavari and the regional administrative office Yanam the same disclosed that out of 555 license holders, 378 license holders are possessing ration cards.

As per the investigation officer the license files of the syndicate revealed hand writings in tender forms of all wines except GSL No. 8, 95, 97 and 103 he speaks about the formation of the liquor syndicate prior to the auction.

The binami licenses are P.W 47 to 80 were have BPL cards hence they are in the liquor syndicate of A1.

The financial information secured from Thasildar Offices/P.W. 108 to 112, discloses that the licenses are not financially sound. Hence they were under A1 liquor syndicate.

The property information mentioned in A(2), A2(s) forms of licenses of the

A1 syndicate, was verified with the information furnished by Tahsildar officer i.e., P.W.97, 108 to 113 and P.W. 112 and found that the information is not genuine except few.

On verifying the information furnished by the bank Manager/PW. 98, A1 stood as guarantor for 16 wine shops, PW.93/Manager of A1 stood as guarantor for 13 wine shops and LW.80/ Transporter stood as guarantor for 5 wine shops. Some of the licenses stood as guarantors for some other shops. On 11 verifying the bank account statements of the liquor group i.e., PW.94 to 96, 97 to 105, there were meagre balance amounts and the same indicated weak financial status.

The information furnished by PW. 121/Project Director of Housing, 6 licenses of A1 liquor group were having Indiramma houses.

10.During the course of the trial, PW. 1/Mediator, PW.214/The then

Inspector deposed about search in the provision and Excise Superintendent

Amalapuram on 05.03.2012 and seizure of records i.e., Ex. P3 to P46 (files relating to 44 A4 wine shops) under cover of mediators report/Ex.P2

On perusal Ex. P2, it discloses details of 234 A4 wine shops including shops Exs. P3 to P46. It further shows that ACB Police held a search on service of Sec. 165 Cr. P.C. search proceedings. Ex. P397 show that FIR was registered against A1 and A2 with the permission of DG, ACB, Hyderabad.

The evidence of PW.3/Mediator and the evidence of PW. 216/Inspector deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C and they recorded the statement of the depot manager/PW.7 containing the details of 18 syndicates including a syndicate of Accused No.1 for 44 A4 wine shops and further, they seized records Ex. P80 to P84. On perusal, Ex. P79 shows about such in IML Depot A.P Beverage Corporation Limited,

Amalapuram by P.W. 3/Mediator and P.W. 216/Inspector and others and seizure of Ex. P. 80 to P. 84 and further examining depot Assistant manager by the name by name G. Syamalarao on recorded information about 18 syndicate liquors including A1 liquor syndicate. Interestingly, the prosecution examined

P.W. 3 and 216 only but the prosecution failed to examine the Assistant depot manager by name G. Syamalarao. In the absence of evidence from the

Assistant depot manager by the name of G. Syamalarao, I think that the evidence of PW.3/Mediator and PW. 216/The Inspector does not sufficiently prove the contents of the mediator's report particularly the statement of G.

Syamalarao Assistant depot manager.

11. Regarding search warrants are concerned, Sec.99 & 100 deal with the subject. In the instant case, the police followed the search procedure laid down

U/sec.165 Cr.P.C. Though Sec.165 Cr.P.C. empowers the Investigating Officer to conduct a search, sec.165 (4) mandates procedure about search warrants dealt U/sec.100 of Cr.P.C. Sec.93 deals with the procedure of issuing a search 12 warrant. Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure of search in a closed house with a search warrant. 

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C says  " Persons in charge of closed place to allow search­ (1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.

(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub­ section (2) of section 47.

(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made another woman with strict regard to decency. 

(4) 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 al witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed b such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall , in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

(7) When any person is searched under sub­section(3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by and order on writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)".

13

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. mandates the Investigating Officer to search a closed house with a search warrant and with the help of local inhabitants. But, in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure laid down

U/sec.93 & 100 Cr.P.C. Hence, the alleged search and seizure of documents i.e. Ex.P2 to P.46 under mediators report/Ex.P2, Ex.P80 to P.84 under mediators report/Ex.P79 are contrary to the provision Sec.100 Cr.P.C. and can not be relied on.

12. To prove that the Malkipuram liquor syndicate run by Accused No.1 for 44 A4 wine shops, the prosecution examined license holders, Nokarnamas, the

Manager and landlord of wine shops. None of the witnesses supported about liquor syndicate being run by A1. Brief evidence of respective A4 licensed shops is produced as follows:

1) G.S.L.No.8 License Holder Meddimsetti Adi Lakshmi (Nobody examined).

2) G.S.L.No.95: 

P.W.47/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P130.

P.W.10/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether P.W.93 worked as Manager and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P93.

P.W.93 was deposed as he never worked as Manager in this shop and he did not know 44 shops. Accordingly, he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P176.

P.W.72/Building Owner deposed that she does not know about the A1 and his business but she let out the shop to one Rakapalli

Satyanaryayana/PW.49 she turned hostile her 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P155.

3) G.S.L.No.97:

P.W.48/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P131.

14

P.W.11/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether Lingolu Satyanarayana @ Peddabullu worked as Manager and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P94.

4) G.S.L.No.103: 

P.W.49/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P132.

P.W.12/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and does not know about owner Rakapalli Satyanarayana/PW.49 turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P155

5) G.S.L.No.124: 

P.W.50/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P133.

P.W.13/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether P.W.50 turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P96.

6) G.S.L.No.125:

P.W.51/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P134.

P.W.14/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether P.W.97 turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P97.

7) G.S.L.No.127: 

License Holder/R.V.R. Satyanarayana is not examined

P.W.36/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether L.W.70 worked as a manager, L.W.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P119.

8) G.S.L.No.128:

15

License Holder/A. Srinivasa Raju is not examined

P.W.37/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and whether L.W.70 worked as a manager, L.W.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P120.

9) G.S.L.No.129: 

P.W.52/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P135.

P.W.21/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and about their licensed owner Lingoli Venkata Kumar Raja and also Lingoli

Satyanaryana worked as a manager and Dommeti Satyanarayana worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P104.

10) G.S.L.No.131: 

P.W.53/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P136.

L.W.23/Nowkarnama is not examined

P.W.74/Building Owner examined and he deposed that he let out the building to PW.53 and he did not know about the syndicate of Accused No.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P157.

11) G.S.L.No.132: 

License Holder/P.V.V. Padmanaba Raju is not examined.

P.W.15/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1 and syndicate and about their licensed owner Lingoli Venkata Kumar Raja and also Lingoli

Satyanaryana worked as a manager and Dommeti Satyanarayana worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P98.

12) G.S.L.No.133: 

16

P.W.54/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P137.

P.W.16/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Meka Chandrarao /P.W.67 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P99.

13) G.S.L.No.134: 

P.W.55/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P138.

P.W.17/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he do not know Accused No.1 and license owner Katta Subba Rao/P.W.55 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P100.

P.W.88/BuildingOwner deposed that he let out the shop to P.W.55 and he does not know about A1 he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P171.

14) G.S.L.No.135:

P.W.56/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P139.

P.W.18/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Chitimeni Srinivasarao/P.W.56 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P101.

P.W.89/Neighbor of the building deposed he is running a Kirana Shop beside the wine shop he does not know about the owner of the shop and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P172.

17

P.W.76/building owner deposed that he let out the shop to P.W. 56 for running a liquor shop he does not know A1 and whether A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P159.

15) G.S.L.No.136: 

P.W.57/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P140.

P.W.19/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he did not know

Accused No.1 and license owner Ravi Satyanarayana Murthy/P.W.57 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.102.

P.W.77/building owner deposed that he let out the shop to P.W. 57 for running a liquor shop he does not know A1 and whether A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P160.

16) G.S.L.No.137: 

P.W.58/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P141.

P.W.29/Nowkarnama not examined.

P.W.78/Building owner deposed that he let out the shop to P.W. 58 for running a liquor shop he does not know A1 and whether A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P161.

17) G.S.L.No.138: 

P.W.59/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P142.

18

P.W.20/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Sariki Rambabu/P.W.59 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P103.

P.W.79/Building owner deposed that he let out the shop to P.W.59 for running a liquor shop he does not know A1 and whether A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P161.

18) G.S.L.No.139: 

P.W.60/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P143.

P.W.22/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner B. Venkatanarshimam/P.W.60 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P105.

19) G.S.L.No.140: 

P.W.61/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P144.

P.W.23/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Pothuri Ramakrishna Raju/P.W.61 and also Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P106.

20) G.S.L.No.144: 

License Holder/Nadimpalli Venkata Subbaraju Holder not examined.

P.W.38/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Nadimpalli Venkata Subbaraju and also 19

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P121.

The building owner is not examined.

20

21) G.S.L.No.145: 

P.W.62/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P145.

L.W.33/Nowkarnama is not examined as he died

P.W.80/Building owner examined and deposed that he let out the building to P.W. 62 and he does not know A1 and his syndicate. He turned hostile and his 161Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P163.

MRO/P.W. 111 Tahsildar deposed that the said building combined property of P.W. 80 and his father and he has Agriculture lands doing Sub

Contracts works the license is running a liquor shop.

22) G.S.L.No.147: 

P.W.75/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P158.

P.W.24/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Mamadi Satyanarayana/P.W.75 and also Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P107.

P.W. 81/Building owner deposed that he let out the building to P.W.75 he did not know about A1 and his liquor business and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P164.

23) G.S.L.No.153: 

P.W.63/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P146.

P.W.25/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He knows his license owner Ballagiri 21

Nageshwararao/P.W.63 he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dommeti

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P108.

24) G.S.L.No.157: 

P.W.64/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P146.

P.W.26/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and license owner Jakampudi Yesubabu/P.W.64 and also

Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P109.

P.W.82/Building owner examined and he deposed that he let out the premises to P.W.64 and he does not know A1 and his liquor business and he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P165.

25) G.S.L.No.158: 

P.W.65/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P148.

P.W.27/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he knows his license owner Adabala Surya

Prakash/P.W.65 He does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P110.

P.W. 83/Building owner examined and he deposed that he let out the premises to P.W.65 and he does not know A1 and his liquor business and he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P166.

26) G.S.L.No.160: 

22

License Holder not examined.

P.W.28/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He knows his license owner Dometti Venkata

Satyanarayana/L.W.80. He do not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P111.

The building owner is not examined.

27) G.S.L.No.161: 

P.W.66/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P149.

P.W.59/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.1.He knows license owner Lankapallil Nagababu/P.W.66.He do not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P112.

28) G.S.L.No.162: 

L.W.82/License Holder is not examined (died).

P.W.30/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He knows license owner Rudra Ramasatya Anand

Kumar/L.W.82. He does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P113.

29) G.S.L.No.163: 

P.W.67/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P150.

23

P.W.31/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He knows license owner Koppi Setti Krishna Rao/P.W.67 he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P114.

30) G.S.L.No.164: 

L.W.84/License Holder is not examined.

P.W.32/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He knows license owner Bokka Nageswararao/L.W.84 he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P115.

31) G.S.L.No.165: 

L.W.85/License Holder is not examined (died).

P.W.33/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1/ He does not know license owner Alluri Arjun Rao/L.W.85.

He does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as a clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P116.

32) G.S.L.No.166: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.39/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 he knew license owner Kamisetti Venkata Rao he did not knowLingoliSatyanarayanaworkedasamanager,Ravi

Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P122.

33) G.S.L.No.168: 

24

P.W.68/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P151.

P.W.34/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he does not know license owner Kusuma

Vamsidhar/P.W.68. He does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P117.

34) G.S.L.No.170: 

P.W.69/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P152.

P.W.35/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1. He does not know license owner Mamadi Surya

Bhagavan/P.W.69 he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as a manager, Ravi Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi

Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P118.

P.W.87/Building owner deposed that he let out the building to P.W.69 he did not know A1 and his syndicateand turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P170.

35) G.S.L.No.171: 

P.W.70/License Holder deposed that he does not know A1 and whether

A1 maintains 44 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P153.

L.W.46Nowkarnama not examined (died).

36) G.S.L.No.173: Nobody is examined.

37) G.S.L.No.177: 

License Holder is not examined.

25

P.W.40/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he knows his license owner Alluru Ramalinga Raju and he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dommeti Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P123.

38) G.S.L.No.178: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.41/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 he knew his license owner Dometti Venkata Ratnam and he did not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P124.

39) G.S.L.No.179: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.42/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 and he knew his license owner Ninayala Srinivasa Rao and he did not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P125.

40) G.S.L.No.181: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.43/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he did not know Accused No.1 he knew his license owner Pothuraju Srinivasa Rao and he did not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P126.

41) G.S.L.No.182: Nobody examined.

26

42) G.S.L.No.183: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.44/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he knows his license owner Alluri Venkata Thimmaraju and he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P127.

43) G.S.L.No.185: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.45/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he knows his license owner Jaggu Sitaramudu and he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi

Satyanarayana/L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P128.

44) G.S.L.No.186: 

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.46/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.1 he knows his license owner Adapala Veeranna and he does not know Lingoli Satyanarayana worked as manager, Ravi Satyanarayana /L.W.70 worked as clerk and Dometi Satyanarayana/LW.80 worked as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P129.

The evidence of the witnesses discussed above for 44 A4 wine shops does not disclose any material proving that all 44 wine shops were being maintained by Accused No.1 as a Malkipuram syndicate before Auction.

13.To prove the liquor syndicate of A1, the prosecution examined P.W. 47 to 83 as they were possessing BPL cards. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.47 to

P.W. 70, they are licence holders all of them deposed that they do not know A1 and they got the licence of participation in tender. They further deposed that they do not know whether the syndicate of A1 had 44 shops. P.W. 47 to P.W.

27 70 identified their signatures on the files about their respective shops and marked files as Exs.P4 to P14, P16 to P21, P23, P25, p26, P27, P29, P31, P35 to P37 respectively. They claimed that they paid the auction amount through installments. In their respective cross­examinations, they claimed that the property shown in the file belonged to their family. They denied the suggestion that they had no source of income to invest and pay off the amounts and they acted as binami of Accused No. 1. Accordingly they denied their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements marked as Ex. P131 to P. 153. But, in the cross­examination of the defence they claimed that they have sufficient properties they run their liquor shop and they paid amounts on their own accord before tender and after tender.

Accordingly the evidence of P.W. 47 to 70 does not disclose any material evidence that they acted as binami of Accused No.1 and that they were part of the Malikipuram syndicate belongs to Accused No.1. The evidence of P.W. 71 to 80 being landlords of the shops discussed in GSL shops above, disclose that they were not aware of A1 and his business and also about irregularities of their tenants. The 161 statements of P.W. 71 to 80 were marked as Exs. P. 154 to 163. Hence, no material evidence has been elicited proving the licence holders were part of a syndicate of Accused No.1.

14(a).The prosecution examined the Thasildars P.Ws 108 to 112 to prove their financial incapacity of licence holders etc. PW. 108 deposed an identifying letter addressed by his predecessor. As per the evidence of the P.W. 108, the

P.W. 47, P.W. 49, P.W. 50, P.W. 52, P.W. 56, P.W. 58, P.W. 59, P.W. 60, P.W.

67, L.W. 84 have no sufficient income and they are the holding BPL cards. He further deposed that P.W. 47, P.W. 57, P.W. 59 P.W.61, P.W.67, A. Krishna

Naidu, M. Panduranga Raju, Logolu Satyanarayana, K.s.V.V. Gopala Raju, O.

Venkanna, L. Venkateshwararao, Yelamanchi Babu Rao, A. Raja Ratnam, L.

Venkata Narayana Murthy, N.V. subbaraju, P.W. 67, do not hold landed property like mentioned in their affidavits. P.W. 108 further deposed about the running of belt shops in different villages. In the cross­examination, He denied the suggestion that Exs. P198 to 211 are prepared without examining the individuals.

(b).PW. 109 deposed an identifying letter addressed by his predecessor. As per the evidence of the P.W. 109, the P.W. 51, P.W. 54, P.W. 52, P.W. 55, P.W.

57, and P.W. 63, have no sufficient income and they are holding BPL cards. He 28 further deposed that, Venkateshwararao, N. Venkata Suryana Raju, L.

Venkateshwararo, L. Venkata Narayana Murthy, Alluri Parijatamma,

Penumalla Karthik, A. Radha Devi, A. Padmadevi, D. Seethamani, Sahik

Kalisha, P.V. Naga Surya Rambabu, R.Venkata Narshima Raju, P.V. Venkata

Padma Raju, Meka Chandra Rao, Katta Subbarao, Kollu Srinivasa Rao, D.

Venkata Satyanarayana, D. Nageshwararao, A. Arjuna Raju, do not hold landed property like mentioned in their affidavits and some of them have no landed property. P.W. 109 further deposed about the running of belt shops in different villages. In the cross­examination, he denied the suggestion that Exs.

P212 to P221 are prepared without examining the individuals.

(c).P.W. 110 deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor V. Chitti

Babu. As per the information submitted his predecessor, D.V.V. Satyanarayana was holding a white ratio card with less income and house stands in the name of his wife. In the cross­examination,

(d).P.W. 111 deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor

Ramakrishna. As per the information submitted by his predecessor, U.

Srinivasa Rao, A. Surya Prakash, L. Rambabu, K. Vamshidar, T.S. Durga

Prasad Rao, D. Venkata Ratnam, N. Srinivas Rao, S. Nageswararao, were holding white ratio card and houses with less income. He further deposed about running of belt shops. In the cross­examination, He denied the suggestion that Exs. P224 to P230 is prepared without examining the individuals.

(e).PW. 112 deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor G. Lakshmi

Pathi. As per the information submitted his predecessors, M. Suryabhagavan,

M. Satyanarayana, R.R.S. Anand Kumar, and J. Yesu Babu were holding white ratio cards and houses with less income. He further deposed about running of belt shops. In the cross­examination, he denied the suggestion that Exs. P31 to

P236 are prepared without examining the individuals.

(f).P.W. 113/Thasilder deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor

Y. Srinivas. As per the information submitted his predecessor, C.Srinivasarao was holding white ratio cards and houses with less income. He further deposed about running of belt shops. In the cross­examination, he denied the suggestion that Exs. P237 and P238 are prepared without examining the individuals.

29

P.W. 114/MPDO deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor J.

Aruna As per the information submitted his predecessor, C.Srinivasarao was holding having any house. In the cross­examination, he denied the suggestion that Exs. P239 is prepared without examining the individuals. P.W.

119/Thasildar deposed the identifying signature of his predecessor Johnson

As per the information submitted his predecessor, G. Satyanarayana Murthy is not residing in the village and does not own any landed property in the village and he was residing Amalapuram. His affidavit is not genuine. In cross­ examination he deposed, he had no personal knowledge about the licensed shop. The signatory is residing in Kakinada.

In the cross­examination, P.Ws. 108 to 112, 113 and 114 deposed that they have no personal knowledge about the records. They further deposed that

Tahsildars have not examined any license holder personally and the market value of agriculture land will be more than double than registration value. They further deposed that there is no rule in the revenue department that white ration card holders shall not do any other profession or business.

15.On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 108 to 112, 113 and 114/ Thasildars in chief and cross­examination, it is clear that there is no rule prohibiting white ration card holders from participating in the auction. The license holders already examined are categorically deposed as they are not related to Accused

No. 1 and they individually maintained their shops and paid installments to the Government. Given the evidence of license holders, I am of the view that the evidence of P.W. 108 to 114 does not propose any material evidence to prove that all the license holders acted in a tender on behalf of Accused No. 1 and were part of a syndicate of A1.

16. P.W. 94 to 105 are Bank Managers. The Manager / P.W94 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 50, P.W. 52, and P.W. 54 to

P.W. 61 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.177. P.W. 95 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 62, P.W. 75, P.W.

64, P.W. 66, P.W. 68 to P.W. 70, LW. 85, L.W. 82, P.W. 65 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.178. P.W. 96/Bank Employee deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 47, P.W. 49, P.W. 63, P.W.

67, L.W. 84, and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.180. He further deposed about account details of P.w. 65 and this letter/ Ex. P181.

P.W. 99 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of Accused No.1 30 with the letter Ex. P186. He further deposed about bank details of P.W. 57,

P.W. 59 LW. 80 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.187.

P.W. 100 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 48 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.188. P.W. 101 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 48 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P.189. P.W. 102 deposed that his predecessor gave

Account details of P.W. 49, P.W.53, P.W. 60 and the balance amount. P.W. 61 has no account. The letter is marked as Ex. P190. P.W. 103 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 55 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P191. P.W. 104 deposed that his predecessor gave

Account details of P.W. 64 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as

Ex. P192.P.W. 105 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W.

66 and the balance amount. The letter is marked as Ex. P193.

In cross­examination, they deposed that they have no personal knowledge about license holders and whether license holders acted as binami of others. P.W. 98/Bank manager deposed identifying signature of his predecessor in the letter Ex. P.183, furnishing the details that A1 stood as the third party guarantee for 16 licensed holders i.e., S. No. 1 to 5, 9 to 12, 16, 19, 22 to 24, 28 and 30 and P.W. 93 stood as third party guarantee for 13 licensed holders I.e.s Sl.No. 68, 13 to 15, 17, 18, 20,21, 25 to 27, L.W. 80 stood as a third­party guarantee for S. No. 20,22,23,25 and 27. They furnished an account statement of P.W. 48 under letter Ex. P184 and further furnished account details of P.W. 52 under letter Ex. P185 as they were having less balance amount. In cross­examination, he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the accounts of license holders. He is not aware whether anybody acted as binami of others. Licensee deposed amount as per Ex. P 183.

According nothing is elicited against the A.O. 1 about syndicate and in support of prosecution, though P.W. 98 deposed about A1 and others stood as guarantees for each other, there is no material to prove that all the license holders acted as binami of Accused No. 1.

17(a).The prosecution examined P.W. 121 Project Director A.P., Housing deposed identifying signature of his predecessor G. Satyanarayana on

Letter/Ex. P49 and deposed that P.W.47, P.W. 49, P.W. 53 in their names and

L.W. 82 in the name of his father and D.G. Nageshwarao in the name of his spouse, got houses under Government Schemes. In cross­examination, he 31 deposed that he does not know whether beneficiaries under housing schemes are doing any other business. Though P.W. 121 was deposed about obtaining houses under Government Schemes by five persons, the prosecution failed to produce any proof those beneficiaries were not eligible for getting shops.

However, I already discussed that none of the evidence of witnesses related to

GSL shops does disclose any material that their shops are binami shops of

Accused No. 1.

(b).PW.106/Employee of Income Tax Department deposed that P.W. 47 to 50, 62, 80, 84, 51 to 61, 63 to 70, 75, 85 filed income tax returns for the period – 2008­2009­2010 and 2011­2012 and some of they filed for two years.

P.W. 106, 107/ Employee of Income Tax Department, deposed about the filing of Income Tax returns by L.W. 82 for 2011­2012 only. However, the cross­ examination of P.W. 106 and 107 do not show anything about the syndicate.

Hence, the evidence of these witnesses is in no way helpful to the prosecution case.

In view of the evidence of Mediators PW.1 to 4 and other witnesses PWs.5 to 9, Investigating Officers PW.250, 214 and 260 about searches regarding liquor syndicate at Malkipuram at the IML Depot Amalapuram and Excise

Superintendent office Rajahmundry and nowkarnamas Pws.10 to 46, landlords

PWs.71 to 88, neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.89 to 92, Tahsildars PWs.97, 108 to 113, 115, 116 and 119 and MPDO/P.W. 114, Bank Managers PW.93, 94,95 and 98 to 105 and Income Tax Officer PW.106 and 107 and Nodel Officer

P.Ws. 120, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 formed liquor syndicate with the assistance of A4 wine shop licensees at Malkipuram,

Amalapuram Taluka and Accused No.2/Excise Inspector.

18. POINT No.I(B)

Whether A1's liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.2/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise

Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.1 and A2 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses)

Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

32

 Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that "14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8)

(9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more than

one shop. In the event of a person being a successful auction

purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by him in

respect of any other shop/shops shall automatically become

invalid".

Regarding Sec.14(9) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and A.P. Excise Rules 2005, the prosecution examined Excise Superintendent PW.65 in addition to the nowkarnamas. The evidence of PW.65 discloses furnishing the details of the shops required by the ACB Officials and nowkarnamas. In the cross­ examination both the witnesses specifically deposed that the information/documents furnished to them do not disclose any recitals of

Malkipuram liquor syndicate. The evidence of PW.65 shows that A.1 had only one shop i.e. Kalyani Wines as per Ex.P244 and A1's son by name Rudraraju

Srinivasa Raju had a shop Madhuri Wines and A.1 is not connected to with the other shop mention under Ex.P244 and Ex.P245

PW.215/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs, VROs etc. regarding violations of Excise Act and Excise Rules.

On perusal the evidence of MROs PWs. 115 and 116 show about running of belt shops but do not disclose any material by whom the belt shops were being run and particularly there is no material that A1 is responsible for and

A.2 conspired with them. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.1 held more than one shop and he submitted false depositions further he was doing benami transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, sold the liquor over and above MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 44 GSL shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 is the owner of all 44 shops. 

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules, 2005 by A.1 to

A.4. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue. 

19. Point No. I (c)  33

Whether Whether A.1 paid regular mamools to Accused No.2/Excise

Inspector and A.2 being a public servant conspired with A.1 and collected monthly mamools as illegal gratification from liquor syndicate of A.1 and the prosecution has proved the offence U/Sec. 109 of IPC r/w 13(1) (a) of the

Provision of Corruption Act 1988 against A1 and further proved offence u/sec.13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A2?

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005, says that 

" Rule 41 Monetary transactions with officers prohibited: Any kind of

monetary transactions unconnected with the official purpose between

the licensee and the personnel of the Prohibition & Excise, Police,

Revenue Department and the personnel of the APBCL is strictly

prohibited". 

The Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988 deals with the misconduct of public servants for accepting, obtaining etc., of bribes under section 13 of the

Act.

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— 1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

(a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b)…….

(c)……

(d)…….

2. Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.

As the prosecution alleges that the Accused No.1 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.2/Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor shops to ignore the violations of the Excise Laws. Hence, it is necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.2 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the Accused

Officer No.2.

34

20. PUBLIC SERVANT

SECTION 2(C) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT:

Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.2 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Rajahmundry South, Rajahmundry as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of the Accused Officer No.2 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption

Act. Moreover, the employment of the Accused Officer No.4 is not disputed by the defence.

As Accused No.2 retired from the service by the time of filing of the charge sheet, the investigation officer filed the charge sheet without obtaining any sanction and the same is disputed by the Accused. 

21. As per the prosecution case, Accused Nos.1 have paid bribes to several public servants, on behalf of the alleged Malkipuram Syndicate, including

Accused Officer No.2. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribes paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order Police etc., the Investigating Officer made the Accused Officer No.2 only as an accused since Accused No.2 is

Excise Department employee. In view of the above circumstances, it is the turn of the prosecution to prove the payments of bribes to Accused Officer No.2. 

As per the prosecution case, Investigating Officer/P.W.215 deposed specifically that Accused No.1 paid monthly mamools to the Excise Inspector

Accused No.2 and other public Servants on behalf of a syndicate consisting of 44 shops. As discussed in point no.1, I gave a finding that the prosecution failed to prove syndicate and further none of the witnesses relating to 44 wine shops have supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, except the evidence of

Investigating Officer/P.W. 216, there is no material to prove that Accused No.1 paid monthly mamools to Accused No.2, on behalf of 44 wine shops to ignore violations of Excise laws. With the discussion about evidence of Investigation

Officer P.W. 216, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove payments of mamools/bribes by A1, on behalf of Malkipuram syndicate, to Accused

No.2/Excise Inspector. As the prosecution failed to prove about payment of bribes by A1 to A2, the requirement for discussion over the argument of the

Special Public prosecutor about the applicability of Sec. 8 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988, does not arise. With this discussion, I hold that the 35 prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 r/w Sec. 109 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2. 

Point No.II (A)

Whether there had been any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A3 with the assistance of A4 shop license holders in

Kakinada?

22.As per the prosecution case, the ACB Inspector along with mediators held a search in the Excise Superintendent's office in Kakinada, and

Rajamahendravaram on 05.03.2012 and seized files of 555 wine shops and other records under the cover of mediators' report. Then, with the permission of the ACB DG., Hyderabad regarding binami shops maintained by the Accused with the collusion of the Excise Inspector they registered FIR Crime No.3/RCO­

RJY/2012 on 15.04.2012 during the course of the investigation the inspector held a search in IML depot Samarlkot and seized out ward registers and attendance registers i.e., Ex. P80 to 84. The inspector examined Depot

Manager G. Shyamalarao and he stated that there are 5 Excise circles and out of 234 GSL wine shops, 54 wine shops are under Ramachandrapuram Excise circle and the remaining 180 shops are taking stocks from IML Depot

Amalapuram. Out of 180 wine shops, 154 wine shops are being run by 18 liquor syndicates. He gave details of 18 syndicates being maintained by several persons including Accused No.1. As per the details, Accused No.1 is maintaining for Malkipuram syndicate for 44 shops with his manager by

Peddabbulu Tekisetti Palam/P.W. 93 and stock lifted by D.

Satyanarayana/L.W.80 (Not examined since died). All the above proceedings were mentioned in the mediator's report Ex. P79. Later, the Investigation

Officer secured details of license holders from the District Collector's Office,

East Godavari and West Godavari and the Regional Administrative Office,

Yanam and the same discloses that out of 555 license holders, 378 license holders are possessing ration cards.

23. As per the investigation officer the license files of the syndicate revealed the hand writings in tender forms of all wines except GSL No. 8, 95, 97 and 103 he speaks about the formation of the liquor syndicate prior to the auction.

The binami licenses i.e., P.W 47 to 80 had BPL cards hence they are in the liquor syndicate of A1.

36

The financial information secured from Tahsildar Offices/P.W. 108 to 112, discloses that the licenses are not financially sound. Hence, they were under A1's liquor syndicate.

The property information mentioned in A(2), A2(s) forms of licenses of the

A1 syndicate, was verified with the information furnished by Tahsildar officer i.e., P.W.97, 108 to 113 and P.W. 112 and found that the information is not genuine except few.

On verifying the information furnished by the bank Manager/PW. 98, A1 stood as guarantor for 16 wine shops, PW.93/Manager of A1 stood as guarantor for 13 wine shops and LW.80/ Transporter stood as guarantor for 5 wine shops. Some of the license holders stood as guarantors for some other shops. On verifying the bank account statements of the liquor group i.e.,

PW.94 to 96, 97 to 105, there were meagre balance amounts and the same indicates the weak financial status.

The information furnished by PW. 121/Project Director of Housing, 6 licenses of A1 liquor group were having Indiramma houses.

24.As per the prosecution case, the ACB Inspector along with the mediators held a search in the Excise Superintendent's office, Amalapuram on 05.03.2012 and seized files of 234 wine shops and other records under the cover of the mediators' report. Then, with the permission of DG. ACB,

Hyderabad regarding binami shops maintained by A1 with the collusion of

Excise Inspector/A2, they registered FIR Crime No.3/RCO­RJY/2012 on 15.04.2012. On 26.04.2012, during the course of the investigation, the inspector held a search in IML depot Samalkota and seized Vehicle Outgoing

Register and Attendance Registers i.e., Ex. P262 to 267. The Inspector examined Depot Manager Ch. Jagannadham, the latter stated that there are 7

Excise circles and out of 147 GSL wine shops, 45 wine shops are under

Samarlakota Excise circle. Out of 192 wine shops, 147 wine shops are being run by 16 liquor syndicates. He gave details of 16 syndicates being maintained by several persons including Accused No.3. As per the details, Accused No.3 is maintaining for SUS syndicate for 27 shops. All the above proceedings were mentioned in the mediator's report Ex. P269. Later investigation officer secured details of license holders from the District Collector's Office, East Godavari and

West Godavari and the Regional Administrative Office, Yanam and the same 37 disclosed that out of 555 license holders, 378 license holders possess ration cards.

The Investigating Officer held a search in the house of Accused No.3 on 06.06.2012 in the presence of a mediator but no incriminating material was found and the same was recorded under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.

P271. On the same day, they held further search at the SUS Syndicate Office,

Kakinada and seized a Bank Passbook and Cheque book etc., i.e., Ex. P272 to 277 under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex. P278. On examination, Accused

No.3 confessed to maintaining 27 shops under SUS Wines along with other partners Kampare Ramesh, Gorre Shankar, S. Lakshmi Narayana and Prasad of Janapriya Grop, Vizag and he further stated the details of the amount invested by all of them.

25(A).As per the Investigation Officer, the 27 auction tender forms revealed the hand writings of A3 on tender forms of all wines, hence, there was a formation of the liquor syndicate before the auction. The binami licenses i.e.,

P.W. 153 to 163 are binami licenses of the A3 liquor syndicate and out of which P.W. 152 to 161, 213 and 163 and others have BPL cards hence they are in the liquor syndicate of A3.

The financial information secured from Thasildar Offices/P.W. 191, 193, 197, 195, 196, 200 and 202, disclose that the licenses are not financially sound. Hence they were under A3 liquor syndicate.

The property information mentioned in A(2), A2(s) forms of licenses of

A3's syndicate, was verified with the information furnished by Tahsildar's

Office i.e., P.W.190 to 196, 199 and 200 and found that the information is not genuine except few. Further, A3 stood as surety for P.W. 162 and arranged sureties to shops of L.W. 48, P.W. 154, L.W. 53 and P.W. 160.

On verifying the information furnished by the Bank Manager/PW. 184 to 187, the bank account statements of the liquor group show that they had a meagre balance amount and the same indicates the weak financial status.

The information on IT returns of the liquor syndicate of A3, submitted by 188 shows some of them obtained PAN cards recently and filed IT Returns for 2010­2012.

38 25(B).During the course of the trial, PW. 1/Mediator, PW.214/The then

Inspector deposed about search in the provision and Excise Superintendent,

Amalapuram on 05.03.2012 that ACB Police held search on service of Sec. 165

Cr.P.C. search proceedings. Ex. P397 show that FIR was registered against A1 and A2 only with the permission of DG, ACB, Hyderabad.

The evidence of PW.122/Mediator and the evidence of PW. 216/Inspector deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C.

and they recorded the statement of the depot manager/Ch. Jagannadham, which contains the details of 16 syndicates including a syndicate of Accused

No.3 for 27 A4 wine shops and further they seized records Ex. P262 to 267. On perusal, Ex. P269 shows about search in IML Depot A.P Beverage Corporation

Limited, Samalkota by P.W. 122/Mediator and P.W. 216/Inspector and others and seizure of Ex. P. 262 to P. 267 and further examining depot Assistant manager by name Ch. Jagannadham on recorded information about 16 syndicate liquors including A3 liquor syndicate. Interestingly, the prosecution examined P.W. 122 and 216 only but the prosecution failed to examine the

Assistant Depot Manager by name Ch. Jagannadham. In the absence of evidence from the Assistant depot manager by the name of Ch. Jagannadham,

I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW.122/Mediator and PW.

216/Inspector is not sufficient to prove the contents of the mediators' report particularly the statement Ch. Jagannadham Assistant Depot Manager.

Though the prosecution produced evidence about the search in the house of Accused No.3 under the cover of mediator report Ex. P271, no incriminating material was found there. Hence, there is no need to discuss Ex.

P 271. The evidence of the P.W. 123/Mediator and P.W. 216/Investigating

Officer show that they held search U/Sec. 165 Cr.P.C., in the office of SUS syndicate and seized Ex. P. 272 to 277 under the cover of mediators Ex. P. 278 and they recorded the statement of Accused No.3 about maintaining 27 shops under SUS Wines along with other partners Kampare Ramesh, Gorre Shankar,

S. Lakshmi Narayana and Prasad of Janapriya Grop, Vizag and he further stated about the amount invested by all of them. A perusal of Ex. P.278 shows the contents in support of the evidence of P.W. 123 and 216. Further, Ex. P 278 shows Accused No.3's confession about maintaining a syndicate liquor shop consisting of 27 shops.

26. In para No.11, I discussed the Sec.100 Cr.P.C.

39

The Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. mandates the Investigating Officer to conduct a search in a closed house with a search warrant and with the help of local inhabitants. But, in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure laid down U/sec.93 & 100 Cr. PC. Hence, the alleged search and seizure of documents i.e. Ex.P262 to P.267 under mediators report/Ex.P269,

Ex.P272 to 277 under mediators report/Ex.P278 are contrary to the provision

Sec.100 Cr.P.C. and can not be relied upon.

27. Regarding confession is concerned, Sec.26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deals with the confession. 

In the authority, Aghnoo Nagesla vs State of Bihar AIR 1966, 119, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had discussed the confession and

admissibility and held as follows:

"If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as s. 24, s. 25 and s. 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section such as s. 27 of the Evidence

Act. Little substance and content would be left in ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted.

If the confession is caused by an inducement, threat or pro­ mise as contemplated by s. 24 of the Evidence Act, the whole of the confession is excluded by s. 24. Proof of not only the admission of the offence but also the admission of every other incriminating fact such as the motive, the preparation and the subsequent conduct is excluded by s. 24. To hold that the proof of the admission of other incriminating facts is not barred by s. 24 is to rob the section of its practical utility­and content. It may be suggested that the bar of S. 24 does not apply to the other admissions, but though receivable in evidence, they are of no weight, as they were caused by inducement, threat or promise.

According to­ this suggestion, the other admissions are relevant but are of no value. But we think that on a plain construction of s.

40 24, proof of all the admissions of incriminating facts contained in a confessional statement is excluded by the section. Similarly, ss.

25 and 26 bar not only proof of admissions of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer but also admissions contained in the confessional statement of all incriminating facts related to the offence.

A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of ss. 24, 25 and 26

Section 27 thus shows that a confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co­accused a confession of another accused affecting not only himself but the other co­accused.

Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may from part of the confession.

If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of s. 25 is lifted by s.

27. Our attention is not drawn to any decision of this Court or of the Privy Council on the question whether apart from s. 27, a confessional first information report given by an accused is 41 receivable in evidence against him. Decisions of the High Courts on this point are hopelessly conflicting. They contain all shades of opinion ranging from total exclusion of the confession to total inclusion of all admissions of incriminating facts except the actual commission of the crime. In Harji v. Emperor(1) and Noor

Muhammad v. Emperor(2), the Lahore High Court held that the entire confessional first information report was inadmissible in evidence. In Emperor v. Harman Kisha (3), the Bom­ bay High

Court held that the entire confessional report dealing with events on the night of the offence was hit by s. 25, and it could not be said that portions of it dealing with the motive and the opportunity were not parts of the confession. In King Emperor v.

Kommoju Brahman(1), the Patna High Court held that no part of the confessional first information report was receivable in evidence, the entire report formed a single connected story and no part of it had any meaning or significance except in relation to the whole, and it would be wrong to extract parts of the statement and treat them as relevant. This case was followed (1)

A.I.R. 1918 Lah. 69.”

Given the provision Sec.26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confession of

A.3 about the syndicate, and the Confession of A.3 about the bribes, recorded under Mediators Report/Ex.P278. The alleged Confession of A.3 under

Mediators Report/Ex.P278 about syndicate and payment of bribes to

Government Officials is not admissible in evidence. Further, Ex. P278 do not disclose the names and details of any government Servant who allegedly received bribes, including Accused No.4.

28. In addition to the search and seizure and confessions of A3 discussed above, the prosecution examined P.W. 181/Manager and PW.183 /Transporter of the SUS syndicate owned by Accused No. 3. The evidence of P.W. 181 and 183 are discussed here under.

PW.181 deposed that he does not know A.3 and the SUS syndicate and he never worked in the SUS syndicate. He never handed over the sale amount and particulars of expenditure to A.3. He does not know the syndicate by A.3 42 and the irregularities of the shop. Accordingly, PW.8 turned hostile. In the cross­examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, did not support the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement/Ex.P338 accordingly, he turned hostile.

PW.183 deposed that previously, at the request of liquor shop persons, he used to transport liquor in his vehicles from APBCL Samlakota. He does not know Accused No. 3 and SUS syndicate and he never worked in SUS syndicate.

Accordingly, PW.183 turned hostile. In the cross­examination held by the Spl.

Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, did not support the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement/Ex.P340 accordingly, he turned hostile.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 181 and 183 does not support the prosecution.

29. To prove that the SUS liquor syndicate run by Accused No.2 for 27 A4 wine shops, the prosecution examined license holders, Nokarnamas, the

Manager, and Landlords of wine shops. None of the witnesses supported about liquor syndicate being run by A3. Brief evidence of respective A4 licensed shops is produced as follows:

SUS Syndicate, Kakinada 1). G.S.L.No.235:

P.W.153/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P310.

L.W.20/Nowkarnama is not examined (since died).

P.W.185, 186/Bank Managers deposed that his predecessor furnished the account details of 17 license holders of SUS Syndicate, Kakinada.

P.W. 188/Income tax officer deposed that one K. Tulasi Das addressed a letter to ACB Officials as per the record available he furnished the IT Returns relating to A4 wine shops of 18 license holders.

P.W. 191/Tahsildar, Unguturu deposed that his predecessor furnished details of family members of wine shop licensees with their respective Ration

Cards.

43

P.W. 192/MPDO, Unguturu deposed that the then MPDO addressed a letter by furnishing particulars of the property shown by the licensees for grant of licenses.

P.W. 210/Excise Superintendent, Kakinada deposed that one G. Joseph the then Deputy Commissioner addressed letters to the ACB,

Rajamahendravaram with details of the jurisdiction of the P & E Stations and

A4 wine shops existing for the lease period.

2). G.S.L.No.239:

P.W.188/License is not examined.

P.W.128/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Ponam Venkata Subbarao and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.188 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P285.

3). G.S.L.No.249:

P.W.152/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P309.

P.W.129/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner K. Naga Purshotam/PW.152 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.188 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P286.

P.W. 164/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to SUS liquor syndicate license to Sri. K. Naga Purshotam/P.W. 152 does not know A3 and about his liquor syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P321.

P.W.188/Income tax officer deposed that he does not know A3 and whether A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P309.d that one K. Tulasi Das addressed a letter to 44

ACB Officials as per the record available he furnished the IT Returns relating to

A4 wine shops of 18 license holders.

4). G.S.L.No.251:

L.W.190/License holder is not examined (since died).

P.W.130/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Pitta Suri Babu/L.W.190 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.188 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P287.

P.W. 166/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to SUS liquor syndicate license to Pitta Suri Babu/L.W. 190 he does not know A3 and about his liquor syndicateand turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P323.

5). G.S.L.No.252:

The license holder is not examined.

P.W.143/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Garre Paidiraju and he does not know Accused No.3 and L.W.234/Yalla Subbarao working as manager and L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P300.

6). G.S.L.No.254:

The license holder is not examined.

P.W.144/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner S.Vidya Sagar and he does not know Accused No.3 and L.W.234/Yalla Subbarao working as manager and

L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P301.

7). G.S.L.No.259:

45

P.W. 213/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P395.

L.W.164/Nowkarnama not examined (since died).

P.W. 165/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to SUS liquor syndicate license to Sodagum Yesu Prasad/P.W. 213 he does not know

A3 and about his liquor syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P322.

P.W. 176/Neighbor of the wine shop deposed that the building owner is

P.Subramanyeswararao/P.W. 165 he does not know about the selling of liquor against rulesand turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P333.

P.W.197/Tahsildar, Kakinada deposed that his predecessor furnished by

VRO concerned for the belt shops run in Kakinada Urban Mandal with Ward members and belt shops etc,

P.W. 199/MPDO, Karapa deposed that the then MPDO addressed a letter to the ACB, Rajamahendravaram with the enquiry report of D.

Srinivasulu Panchayat Secretary Karapa with property particulars sureties given to P.W. 213.

8). G.S.L.No.275:

P.W. 154/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P311.

P.W.131/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Janapala Surya

Narayana/P.W.154 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla

Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P288.

9). G.S.L.No.279:

46

The license holder is not examined.

P.W.145/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Dasri Satya Srihari Rao and he does not know Accused No.3 and L.W.234/Yalla Subbarao working as manager and L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P302.

10). G.S.L.No.281:

The license holder is not examined.

P.W.146/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner K.N.V. Kumar and he does not know Accused No.3 and L.W.234/Yalla Subbaraoworking as a manager and

L.W.233/P.M. Shiva working as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P303.

11). G.S.L.No.286:

L.W. 192/License Holder is not examined (since died).

P.W.174/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Davuluri Krishna

Rao/L.W.192 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla

Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P331.

P.W. 177/Neighbor deposed that he does not know about the license holder and A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex. P334.

12). G.S.L.No.288:

L.W. 193/License Holder not examined (since died).

P.W.132/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Y.Satyanarayana/L.W.193 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P289.

47

P.W. 167/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one

Y.Satyanarayan/L.W. 193 and he did not know Mamidala Venkateswararao/A3 and his liquor business and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P324.

13). G.S.L.No.294:

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.147/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Rajesh and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as a manager and

L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P304.

14). G.S.L.No.299:

P.W. 162/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P319.

P.W.133/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner M. Venkata

Subramanayam/P.W.162 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla

Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P290.

P.W.193/Tahsildar, Penugunda deposed that the then Tahsildar addressed a letter with details of the family members of the wine shop licensee

Mudula Venkata Subramanayam/P.W. 162.

P.W.194/MPDO, Penugunda deposed that the then MPDO addressed the letter with details of the enquiry report along with the particulars shown by the licensees Mudula Venkata Subramanayam/P.W. 162.

15). G.S.L.No.301:

P.W. 155/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P312.

48

P.W.134/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Chilakanti Srinivas/P.W.155 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P291.

P.W. 168/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one Ch.

Srinivas/P.W. 155 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P325.

16). G.S.L.No.302:

L.W. 195/License Holder is not examined.

P.W.135/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Mandapati

Manikyalarao/P.W.195 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla

Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P292.

P.W. 169/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one

Mandapati Manikyalarao/L.W. 195 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P326.

17). G.S.L.No.341:

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.148/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner D.Ramesh and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and

L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P305.

18). G.S.L.No.342:

49

P.W. 163/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P320.

P.W.136/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Yella Narayanarao/P.W.163 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P293.

P.W.196/Tahsildar, Kajuluru deposed that the then Tahsildar addressed letter along with financial details of Yalla Narayanarao/P.W. 163.

19). G.S.L.No.347:

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.149/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Adapa Srinivas and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P306.

20). G.S.L.No.348:

P.W. 156/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P313.

P.W.137/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Guduri Prasad/P.W.156 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P294.

P.W. 170/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one G.

Prasad/L.W. 156 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P327.

21). G.S.L.No.357:

50

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.150/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Bikkina Venkata Rao and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P307.

22). G.S.L.No.361:

P.W. 157/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P314.

P.W.138/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Sesaku Ram Mohan

Rao/P.W.157 and he do not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P295.

P.W. 171/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one

Sesaku Ram Mohan Rao/P.W.157 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P328.

23). G.S.L.No.362:

P.W. 158/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P315.

P.W.139/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he did not know

Accused No.3 and he knew his license owner Ch. Venkateswara Rao/P.W.158 and he do not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as a manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as a transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P296.

P.W. 172/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one Ch.

Venkateswara Rao/P.W.158 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P329.

51

P.W. 178/Neighbor deposed that his shop is situated beside the SUS wine shop. He does not know about the license holder and selling of liquor for higher prices and beyond timings and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P335.

24). G.S.L.No.363:

P.W. 160/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P317.

P.W.140/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Meesala Srinivasarao/P.W.160 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P297.

P.W. 173/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one

Meesala Srinivasarao/P.W.160 for rent to run a wine shop he does not know

A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P329.

P.W. 179/Neighbor deposed that his shop is situated beside the SUS wine shop. He does not know about the license holder and selling of liquor for higher prices and beyond timings and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P336.

25). G.S.L.No.365:

P.W. 159/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P316.

P.W.141/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner Ponnam

Venkateswararao/P.W.159 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla

Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P298.

P.W. 175/Building owner deposed that he gave the building to one

Ponnam Venkateswararao/P.W.159 for rent to run a wine shop he does not 52 know A3 and his syndicate and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P332.

P.W. 211/Excise Superintendent, Kakinada deposed that the then

Superintendent by name Ch. Venkatewshwaralu, B. Arun Rao addressed letters to ACP, Rajamahendravaram along with particulars of GSL numbers located in A4 wine shops Kakinada Excise District.

26). G.S.L.No.366:

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.151/Nowkarnama was examined and he deposed that he does not know Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner K. Tirumalarao and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P308.

27). G.S.L.No.367:

P.W. 161/License Holder deposed that he does not know A3 and whether

A3 maintains 27 liquor shops and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P318.

P.W.142/Nowkarnama examined and he deposed that he does not know

Accused No.3 and he knows his license owner S. Madhu Babu/P.W.161 and he does not know Accused No.3 and Yalla Subbarao/L.W.234 working as manager and L.W.233/P.M.Shiva working as transporter and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P299.

P.W. 180/Neighbor deposed that he is a Gold Smith residing at the

Surya building Peddapuram is situated beside the SUS wine shop. He does not know about the license holder and selling of liquor for higher prices and beyond timingsand turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as

Ex.P337.

P.W. 211/Excise Superintendent, Kakinada deposed that the then

Superintendent by name Ch. Venkatewshwaralu, B. Arun Rao addressed letters to ACP, Rajamahendravaram along with particulars of GSL numbers located in A4 wine shops Kakinada Excise District.

53

The evidence of the witnesses discussed above for 27 A4 wine shops does not disclose any material proving that all 27 wine shops were being maintained by Accused No.3 as a SUS syndicate.

30. To prove the liquor syndicate of A3, the prosecution examined P.W. 152 to 163 binami licenses of A3 syndicate out of which P.W. 152 to 161 and 163 and 213 possessed BPL cards. On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 152 to 161 and 163 and 213, they are license holders all of them deposed that they do not know A3 and they got licenses on participation in tender. They further deposed that they do not know whether the syndicate of A3 had 27 shops. P.W. 152 to 161 and 163 and 213 identified their signatures on the files about their respective shops and marked files as Exs.P51, P.49, P. 56, P63, P. 68, P.70,

P.71, P.73, P.72, P.75, P.62, P.66 and P.55 respectively. They claimed that they paid the auction amount through installments. In their respective cross­ examinations, they claimed that the property shown in the file belonged to their family. They denied the suggestion that they had no source of income to invest and pay off the amounts and they acted as binami of Accused No. 3.

Accordingly they denied the contents of their 161 Cr.P.C. statements marked as Ex. P.309 to P.320 and P.395. But, in the cross­examination of the defence they claimed that they have sufficient properties they run their liquor shop and they paid amounts on their own accord before tender and after tender.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 152 to 161 and 163 and 213 does not disclose any material evidence that they acted as binami of Accused No.3 and that they were part of the SUS syndicate belonging to Accused No.3. The evidence of P.W. 164 to 173 being landlords of the shops discussed in GSL shops above, disclose that they were not aware of A3 and his syndicate business and also about irregularities of their tenants. The 161 statements of

P.W. 164 to 173 were marked as Exs. P.321 to 330. Hence, no material evidence has been elicited proving the licence holders were part of a syndicate of Accused No.3.

31. The prosecution examined the Tahsildars P.Ws 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 200, 202 to prove their financial incapacity of licence holders etc. PW. 191 deposed an identifying letter addressed by his predecessor. As per the evidence of the P.W. 108, the P.W. 153, P.W. 152, P.W. 154, P.W. 155, P.W.156,

P.W.157, P.W.158, P.W.160, P.W.159, P.W.161 and L.W. 188, L.W. 190, L.W.

192, L.W. 193, L.W. 195 have no sufficient income and they are the holding 54

BPL cards. In the cross­examination, He denied the suggestion that Exs. P349 to P.364 are prepared without examining the individuals.

a)P.W. 193 deposed based on the letter Ex. P.366 that P.W. 169 has having white ration card and he has an annual income of Rs. 20,000/ and also has

Rs. 60,000/­ income per annum through his lands.

P.W. 196 Revenue Official deposed that P.W. 163 was having white ration card with less income. His wife availed loan and he was having landed property of

Ac. 3.78 cents, letters were marked as Ex. 370 to 373. P.W. 197 deposed the

L.W. 202 was having a household card with less income his wife availed loan and he had a house. The letters were marked as Ex. P374 to P. 376.

b) P.W. 190/Revenue Official deposed identifying signature of his predecessor disclosing that Y.V.P.S. Prasad of GSL No. 362 is not a resident of

Krupapalem but a resident of Nagamalli Thota and he has no landed property hence the details of property and its value is not correct. P.W. 191 deposed identifying the signatures of his predecessor and deposed that P.W. 153 of GSL

No. 235 having Ac. 2.00 of land and Income of Rs. 3,00,000/­. L.W. 188 of GSL

No. 239 was coolie and having income of Rs. 50,000/­, P.W. 152 of GSL No.

249 was coolie and having Income of Rs. 54,000/­, L.W. 190 of GSL No. 251 was coolie and having Income of Rs. 54,000/­, P.W. 154 of GSL No. 275 having

Ac. 1.00 land and Income of Rs. 45,000/­, L.W. 192 of GSL No. 286 having land Ac. 4.70 and getting an income of Rs. 94,000/­, L.W. 193 of GSL No. 288 having land Ac. 0.50 cents and getting Income of Rs. 58,000/­, P.W. 155 of

GSL No. 301 doing agricultural works and getting Income of Rs. 36,000/­, L.W.

195 of GSL No. 302 doing Lorry clearer and getting Income of Rs. 50,000/­,

P.W. 156 of GSL No. 348 was agriculture coolie and getting Income of Rs.

45,000/­, P.W. 157 of GSL No. 361 he is doing Masion work and getting

Income of Rs. 58,000/­, P.W. 158 of GSL No. 362 he is doing Coolie work and getting Income of Rs. 35,000/­, P.W. 160 of GSL No. 363 he is doing Tailoring work and getting Income of Rs. 54,000/­, P.W. 159 of GSL No. 365 he is doing agricultural Coolie work and getting Income of Rs. 54,000/­, P.W. 161 of GSL

No. 367 he is doing Agricultural Coolie work and getting Income of Rs.

55,000/­ and furnished a property details of P.W. 152, 155 and L.W. 190.

c) P.W. 192/MPDO deposed identifying signature of this predecessor on letter

Ex. P365 furnished details that P.W. 153 of GSL. No. 235 having property RCC building worth Rs. 10,00,000/­, 55

L.W. 188 of GSL. No. 239 having property tiled house worth Rs. 5,00,000/­,

P.W. 154 of GSL. No. 275 having property tiled house worth Rs. 5,00,000/­,

L.W. 192 of GSL. No. 286 having property tiled house worth Rs. 5,00,000/­,

L.W. 193 of GSL. No. 288 has property RCC building worth Rs. 7,00,000/­,

L.W. 195 of GSL. No. 302 having property tiled house worth Rs. 5,50,000/­,

P.W. 156 of GSL. No. 348 has property RCC building worth Rs. 5,25,000/­,

P.W. 157 of GSL. No. 361 having property tiled house worth Rs. 7,00,000/­,

P.W. 158 of GSL. No. 362 having property thatched house worth Rs.

5,75,000/­, P.W. 160 of GSL. No. 363 having property tiled house worth Rs.

5,50,000/­, P.W. 159 of GSL. No. 365 has property RCC building worth Rs.

6,00,000/­, P.W. 161 of GSL. No. 367 has a property tiled house worth Rs.

6,00,000/­.

d) P.W. 193/Tahsildar deposed identifying signature of his predecessor on letter Ex. P 366 deposed that P.W. 162 of GSL No. 299 had 0.60 cents of land with an income of Rs. 60,000/­, P.W. 194/MPDO deposed identifying signature of his predecessor on letter Ex. P.367 deposed that P.W. 162 of GSL

No. 299 had to have a house worth Rs. 22,750/­ shown in the affidavit. P.W.

196/Tahsildar deposed identifying signature of his predecessor on letter Ex.

P.370 and 371 deposed that P.W. 163 of GSL No. 299 was having Ac. 3.78 cents land worth Rs. 19,32,800/­, P.W. 199/MPDO deposed about sureties of

GSL No. 259 and surety Shiva Prasad was having house worth Rs. 28,00,000/­ and further deposed about sureties of GSL No. 365 and surety P.S.

Bhimeshwararao was having house worth of Rs. 20,00,000/­, 

In the cross­examination, P.Ws. 191, 193, 196 and 197 199, 194, 192, and 190 deposed that they have no personal knowledge about the records.

They further deposed that their predecessors have not examined any license holders and property holders personally and the market value of agricultural land will be more than double than registration value. They further deposed that there is no rule in the revenue department that white ration card holders shall not do any other profession or business.

32.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.191, 193, 196, 197, 199, 194, 192, 190/ Tahsildars and MPDOs in chief and cross­examination, it is clear that there is no rule prohibiting white ration card holders from participating in the auction. The licenced holders already examined are categorically deposed as they are not related to Accused No. 3 and they individually maintained their 56 shops and paid installments to the Government and the prosecution filed to examine the surety persons. In view of the evidence of license holders, I am of the view that the evidence of P.W. 191, 193, 196, 197 99, 194, 192, 190 do not propose any material evidence to prove that all the license holders acted in a tender on behalf of Accused No. 3 and they were part of a syndicate of A3.

Bank Manager / P.W. 184 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of A3 and balance amount under letter Ex. P341.

P.W. 185deposed about 17 license holders and their account details under letter Ex. P 342 and also marked the details of other license holders under Ex. P 343.

P.W. 186/Bank Manager deposed 17 license holders and their account details under letter Ex. P 344. P.W. 187 deposed about account details of M.V.

Subramanyam/P.W. 162 under letter Ex. P345. P.W. 189 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of P.W. 153, 152, L.W. 190, L.W. 193 and

P.W. 157 under letter Ex. P347. In cross­examination, they deposed that they have no personal knowledge about license holders and whether licence holders acted as binami of others. To open a savings account, the customer has to personally be present before the bank and attain all formalities. Accordingly, nothing is elicited against A3 about the syndicate and other licensed holders acting as binami of A3.

33.The prosecution examined P.W. 209 District Head, A.P. Housing

Kakinada, deposed identifying signature of his predecessor G. Satyanarayana on Letter/Ex. P388 and deposed that L.W.202 of GSL NO: 259 was allowed a house in the name of his wife. In cross­examination, he deposed that he does not know whether beneficiaries under housing schemes are doing any other business. Though P.W. 209 was deposed about obtaining houses under

Government Schemes by five persons, the prosecution failed to produce any proof those beneficiaries were not eligible for getting shops. However, I already discussed that none of the evidence of witnesses related to GSL shops does disclose any material that their shops are binami shops of Accused No. 3.

34.To prove the syndicate, the prosecution examined expert /P.W. 204 about hand writings of Accused No.3 available in tender forms containing questioned signatures Q. 1 to Q27. The evidence of P.W. 204 shows that the questioned signature was examined with standard signatures of A3 and gave 57 an opinion under Ex. P. 383 stating that whoever wrote the S.1 to S. 25 writings also wrote the writings on Q.1 to Q.22. In cross­examination he admitted that they gave opinion as it is not possible to offer any opinion on the authorship of writings marked Q.23 to Q.27. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.

204 and Ex. P383 does not conform whose hand writings Q.23 to Q.27. On perusal Q.1 to Q.23 the tender application forms are signed by license holders.

On careful perusal of all the documents, the remaining portion of applications seems to be in different handwriting with questioned handwriting. But, nothing is elicited, whose handwriting the tender forms disclose other than the questioned handwriting. On further perusal of hand writings in Q.6, Q.7, Q.9,

Q.10, and Q.14 are different to the hand writings of other questioned hand writings. Further, none of the license holders signed on tender forms deposed disputing the hand writings on their tender form and further deposed that the hand writings belong to A3. Further, the discussion made above does not prove about existence of a syndicate hence, the evidence of the handwriting expert

P.W. 204 and Ex. P.383 are in no way useful to the prosecution case and the same is not material.

PW.188/Employee of Income Tax Department deposed that P.W. 153, 152, L.W. 190, L.W. 202, P.W. 155, L.W. 192, L.W. 193, P.W. 162, P.W. 155,

L.W. 195, P.W. 156, P.W. 157, P.W. 158 and P.W. 160 filed income tax returns for the period – 2008­2009, 2009­2010 and 2011­2012 and some of they filed for two years. However, the cross­examination of P.W. 188 does not show anything about the syndicate. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses is in no way helpful to the prosecution case.

In view of the evidence of Mediators PW.120 and 123 and investigating

Officers PW. 214 to 216 about searches regarding liquor syndicate at SUS syndicate, Kakinada, at the IML Depot Samalkota and Excise Superintendent office Rajahmundry and nowkarnamas Pws.128 to 151 and 174, landlords

PWs.152 to 163 and 213, neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.175 to 180, 181 and 183. Tahsildars/MPDO PWs. 190 to 203 and 205 to 208, Bank Managers

PW.184 to 187 and 189 and Income Tax Officer PW.188. I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.3 formed a liquor syndicate with the assistance of A4 wine shop licensees at the SUS syndicate, Kakinada.

35 Point No: II(B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above

MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.4/Excise 58

Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.3 and 4 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

 Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that “14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8) (9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more than one shop. In the event of a person being a successful auction purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by him in respect of any other shop/shops shall automatically become invalid”.

Regarding Sec.14(9) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and A.P. Excise Rules 2005, the prosecution examined Excise Superintendent PW.210, 211 in addition to the nowkarnamas. The evidence of PW.210 and P.W. 211 discloses furnishing the details of the shops required by the ACB Officials and license holders and files. In the cross­examination both the witnesses specifically deposed that the information/documents furnished to them do not disclose any recitals of SUS liquor syndicate.

PW.216/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs, VROs etc. regarding violations of the Excise Act and Excise

Rules. 

On perusal of the evidence of MROs, PWs. 196, 197, 198, 200, 202 and 203 show the running of belt shops but do not disclose any material by whom the belt shops were being run and particularly there is no material that A3 is responsible for and A.4 conspired with them. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.3 held more than one shop and he submitted false applications further he was doing benamie transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, sold the liquor over and above MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 25 GSL shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.3 is the owner of all the 25 shops.

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules, 2005 by A.3 59 and A.4. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue.

37 II (C) A3 got paid mamools to Accused No.4/Excise Inspector and other officials to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of

Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A3 and Section 13(1)

(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A4?

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005, says that “Rule 41 Monetary transactions with officers prohibited: Any kind of monetary transactions unconnected with the official purpose between the licensee and the personnel of the Prohibition & Excise,

Police, Revenue Department and the personnel of the APBCL is strictly prohibited”. 

The Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988 deals with the misconduct of public servants for accepting, obtaining etc., of bribes under section 13 of the

Act.

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— 1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

(a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in

Section 7; or

(b)…….

(c)……

(d)…….

2. Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.

As the prosecution alleges that the Accused Nos.3 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.4/Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor syndicate shops to ignore the violations of the Excise Laws. Hence, it is 60 necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.4 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the

Accused Officer No.4.

38. PUBLIC SERVANT

Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.4 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Excise Station Kakinada North as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of Accused Officer No.4 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act.

Moreover, the employment of the Accused Officer No.4 is not disputed by the defence.

39. SANCTION ORDER:

P.W.212/Section Officer deposed based on the authorization/Ex.X1. His evidence shows that as per the record, the then Principal Secretary to Revenue of Government of A.P. accorded permission to prosecute Accused No.4 on perusal of the total record i.e., copy of final report, occurrence report, four mediator reports, one search proceedings, the signatory satisfied and accorded sanction/Ex.P393. On perusal, Ex.393/Sanction Proceedings G.O.Ms.No. 200

Revenue(VIG, V) Department 16.05.2014 disclosed that the Government issued a sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer No.4 in the present crime for pecuniary advantage.

40.As per the prosecution case, and the evidence of investigating officer P.W.

216, Accused Nos.3 has paid bribes to several public servants, on behalf of the alleged SUS Syndicate, including Accused Officer No.4. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribes were paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order

Police etc., the Investigating Officer made the Accused Officer No.4 only as an accused since Accused No.4 is Excise Department employee. Except the oral evidence of the investigating officer, there is nothing on record proving that A1 maintained 44 wine shops and paid bribes to Accused Officer No.2 and further, there is no evidence of how much of the amount was paid to Accused No.2. As the prosecution failed to prove about maintained 27 wine shops and payment of bribes by A3 to Excise Inspector/A4, the requirement for discussion over the 61 argument of Special Public prosecutor about applicability of Sec. 8 of

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, does not arise.

41.Another interesting point to be discussed is the registration of the FIR.

As per the evidence of PWs. 1 and 214, the initial search was made in the office of Excise Superintendent, Amalapuram on 05.03.2012 under the cover of

Mediator Report/Ex.P2. Subsequently addressing a letter to the District

Collector, information was secured relating to A3’s syndicate wine shops. On scrutiny, ACB Police came to the conclusion that A1 committed the offence with his syndicate at Malikipuram and A3 committed the offence with his syndicate at Kakinada. Then ACB Police prepared a scrutiny report and with the permission of the D.G.ACB, they registered an FIR and then proceeded with the investigation into two different offences committed by A1 with A2 separately and A3 with A4 separately. After completion of the investigation, the ACB Police filed a charge sheet. Accordingly, there were two independent offences allegedly committed in two different places. As all the two offences are independent of each other, the ACB Police is bound to register two independent crimes and investigate the cases. But the ACB Police clubbed all two independent offences and registered one crime number and investigated the case and accordingly, the actions of the Investigating Officer registering one crime number for two independent offences are contrary to law.

42.With the discussion made in points No. 1 to 3, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused 1 to 4 for the charges

U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of

India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 &

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC.

43.In the result, the Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences

U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of

India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 &

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A4 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

62

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 28 th day of March 2024.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1: Velugotla Venkata Surya Nageswara Rao, Senior Accounts Officer, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam P.W.2: Kedari Veera Lakshmi, Para Medical Officer, DM&HO, Kakinada P.W.3:Pulagandam Swamy Vivekananda, Asst., Commissioner, GST, Kakinada P.W.4:Kanuri Thrinadh Kishore Babu, Junior Accounts Officer, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta P.W.5:Tummala Prasanna Lakshmi Devi, Asst. Supply Officer, O/o Collector (CS) Kakinada P.W.6:Naligala Lakshman Babu, Asst. Supply Officer, O/o Collector (CS) Eluru P.W.7:Uppaluri Srinivas, Retired Assistant Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Vijayawada P.W.8:Agni Durga Lakshmi Devi, Accounts Officer, APBCL, IML Depot, Gudiwada P.W.9:D.Rathaiah, Retired Assistant Manager,APBCL, IML Depot, Gudiwada P.W.10:Vatikalapudi Ramu, Nowkarnama

P.W.11:Chelluboyina Srinivas Rao. Nowkarnama

P.W.12:Geddada Srinivas Rao. Nowkarnama

P.W.13: Dodda Srihari Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.14:Kadali Narendra Kumar, Nowkarnama

P.W.15:Gottumukkala Ramakrishna Raju, Nowkarnama

P.W.16:Chikka Venkateswara Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.17:Kanumuri Ramesh, Nowkarnama

P.W.18:Saladi Prasad, Nowkarnama

P.W.19:Ragireddy Srinivas, Nowkarnama

P.W.20:Datla Subrahmanyeswar Varma, Nowkarnama

P.W.21:Chappidi Satyanarayan, Nowkarnama

P.W.22:Mulagapati Srinivas, Nowkarnama

P.W.23:Vipparthi Srinivasa Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.24:Pulime Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Nowkarnama

P.W.25:Kadali Sriram Murthy, Nowkarnama

P.W.26:Velugotla Rambabu, Nowkarnama 63

P.W.27:Katta Venkata Satyanarayana, Nowkarnama

P.W.28:Adabala Veera Venkata Naga Durga Prasad, Nowkarnama

P.W.29:Gundumenu Parameswara Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.30:Tholeti Venkateswara Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.31:Kesari Venkata Satyanarayana, Nowkarnama

P.W.32:Vardhanapu Satyanarayana Murthy, Nowkarnama

P.W.33:Kodavati Venkata Narasimha Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.34:Namana Srinivasu, Nowkarnama

P.W.35:Katta Srinivasa Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.36:Yanamula Seetharamayya, Nowkarnama

P.W.37:Katari Nagabhushanam, Nowkarnama

P.W.38:Kottapalli Srinivasa Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.39:Kesari Raghava Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.40:Pasalapudi Kasi Viswanadham, Nowkarnama

P.W.41:Manchiganti Renuka Nageswara Rao, Nowkarnama

P.W.42:Sheik Nagoor, Nowkarnama

P.W.43:Kukkunuri Ramesh, Nowkarnama

P.W.44:Mucharla Venkata Satyanarayana, Nowkarnama

P.W.45:Chelluboyina Satyanarayana, Nowkarnama

P.W.46:Mogalakuduru Srinu, Nowkarnama

P.W.47:Rudraraju Srinivasa Raju, Business

P.W.48:Dasam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Business

P.W.49:Rekapalli Satyanarayana, Business

P.W.50:Shaik Khalisha, Finance

P.W.51:Pasalapudi Venkata Surya Rambabu, Accountant

P.W.52:Lingolu Venkata Narayana Kumara Raja, Business

P.W.53:Rudraraju Venkata Narasimha Raju, Business

P.W.54:Meka Chandra Rao, Agriculture

P.W.55:Katta Subba Rao, Business

P.W.56:Chittimenu Srinivasa Rao, Business

P.W.57:Ravi Satyanarayana Murthy, Business

P.W.58:Kollu Srinivasa Rao, Business

P.W.59:Sarika Rambabu, Business

P.W.60:Balijapalli Venkata Narasimham, Business

P.W.61:Pothuri Ramakrishna Raju, Business

P.W.62:Ulisi Srinivasa Rao, Business

P.W.63:Balla Giri Nageswar Rao, Business 64

P.W.64:Jakkampudi Yesubabu, Business

P.W.65:Adabala Surya Prakash, Business

P.W.66:Lankalapalli Rambabu, Business

P.W.67:Thapi Krishna Rao, Business

P.W.68:Kusuma Vamsidhar, Business

P.W.69:Mamidi Surya Bhagavan, Business

P.W.70:Telagareddy Sai Durga Prasad, Business

P.W.71:Namana Suryanarayana Murthy, Agriculture

P.W.72:Nagi Mangadevi, House wife

P.W.73:Akulapati Narasimhacharyulu, Agriculture

P.W.74:Mudunuri Pandu Ranga Raju, Agriculture

P.W.75:Mamidi Satyanarayana, Business

P.W.76:K.V.V. Satyanarayana, Agriculture

P.W.77:Voguri Suryanarayana, Business

P.W.78:Kunadharaju Rajani Kumar, Construction Business

P.W.79:Pippala Venkata Subbayya, Agriculture

P.W.80:Thula Nagaraju, Agriculture

P.W.81:Sheik Ismael, Agriculture

P.W.82:Guduri Satyanarayana Raju, Business

P.W.83:Gidugu Yedukondalu, Business

P.W.84:Gubbala Prabhakar, Agriculture

P.W.85:Gandedi Venkannababu, Agriculture

P.W.86:Papayamma, Housewife

P.W.87:Lakkimsetti Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Agriculture P.W.88:Medicherla Krishnamurthy, Fertilizer Business

P.W.89:Gubbala Satyanarayana, Business

P.W.90:Jana Venkateswar Rao, Jewellary Shop

P.W.91:Adabala Kanaka Durga Prasad, Business

P.W.92:Palakodi Lakshminarayana, Clerk, Sai Marine Feeds

P.W.93:Lingolu Satyanarayana, Business

P.W.94:Vasamsetti Ramakrishna Prasad, Branch Manager, SBI, Malikipuram P.W.95:Modali Raja Bhaskara Rama Gopalam, Branch Manager, SBI, Jaggampeta P.W.96:Mummidivarapu Kanakadurga Charyulu, Branch Manager, SBI, Razole P.W.97:Grandhi Veera Venkateswar Rao, Tahsildar, Gollaprolu

P.W.98:Parimi Murthy Varma, Branch Manager, BOI, Razole 65

P.W.99:Medada Damodara Rama Prasad, Branch Manager, SBI, Lakkavaram P.W.100:Korukonda Hari Krishna, Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Alamuru P.W.101:Neelapu Bhaskar Kasi Viswanadham, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Kothapeta P.W.102:Seepana Rami Naidu, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Malikipuram P.W.103:Bandi Satya Swamy Kiran, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tekisettipalem P.W.104:Yalamanchili Lakshman Kishore, Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Tatipaka P.W.105:Yandava Sathyam Naidu, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Razole 

P.W.106:Thatikonda Nageswar Rao, Income Tax Inspector, Amalapuram P.W.107:Seelam Veerababu, Income Tax Officer, Ward­1, Rajamahendravaram P.W.108:Vagipeyadula Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.109:Yalamalli Rama Kumari, Tahsildar, Sakhinetipalli

P.W.110:Komaram Surya Rao, Tahsildar, Kapileswarapuram

P.W.111:Bonthu Murali Mukteswara Rao, Tahsildar, Razole

P.W.112:Rayaz Hussain, Tahsildar, Mamidikuduru

P.W.113:Geddam Ravindranath Tagore, Tahsildar, P.Gannavaram

P.W.114:Maddipatla Bharathi, MPDO, P.Gannavaram

P.W.115:Paramati Sripallavi, Tahsildar, Amalapuram

P.W.116:G.D. Kishore Babu, Tahsildar, Kothapeta

P.W.117:S.K.D.V. Prasad, Excise Superintendent, Kakinada

P.W.118:M.Rambabu, Assistant Excise Excise Superintendent, Proh.& Excise Department, Amalapuram P.W.119:Ch.Nagalakshmamma, Tahsildar, Inavilli

P.W.120:B.C. Ramaiah. Nodal Officer, Airtel, Andhra Pradesh

P.W.121:Behra Sudhakar Patnaik, Project Director, A.P. Housing, Kakinada P.W.122:Lakkanaboyina Durga Rao, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Rajahmundry P.W.123:P.V.Ratnacharyulu, Retired Deputy P.M.O. O/o CHNC Office, Samalkot P.W.124:Chinthala Jagannadham, Depot Manager, APBCL, IML Depot, Vizianagaram P.W.125:Peruri Satyanarayana, Retired Assistant Depot Manager, IML Depot, Vijayawada P.W.126:Katru Ramesh, Accounts Officer, APBCL, IML Depot, Vizianagaram P.W.127:Chodisetty Kasi Visweswar Rao. Depot Manager, APBCL, IML Depot, Vijayawada P.W.128:Pendem Veerababu, Agriculture

P.W.129:Palivela Srinivasa Rao, Agriculture

P.W.130:Botta Venkata Ramana, Driver 66

P.W.131:Kukkala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Agriculture

P.W.132:Uba Ramakrishna, Contract Supervisor

P.W.133:Kona Bhadram, Juice Shop

P.W.134:Mogali Venkateswar Rao, Masion

P.W.135:Samarthikurthi Mariyya, Civil Work

P.W.136:Alugula Seetharam, Agriculture

P.W.137:Punyamathula Bala Venkateswar Rao, Kirana Shop

P.W.138:Masimukkala Viswanadh, Chicken Shop

P.W.139:Ande Chadradhar Rao, Agriculture

P.W.140:Nakka Nookaraju, Contract Work

P.W.141:Motupalli Somesh, Coolie

P.W.142:Rayi Ranga Rao, Agriculture

P.W.143:Satti Ramalinga Reddy, Aquaculture 

P.W.144:Garuku Ramana Rao, Private Employee

P.W.145:Gali Veera Kumar, Security Guard

P.W.146:Kamana Venkata Ravi, Pan shop

P.W.147:Polavarapu Siva Bhaskar Krishna, Tea Shop

P.W.148:Bonda Satyanarayana, Kirana Shop

P.W.149:Magapu Veera Swamy, Prawn Field

P.W.150:Marella Ramakrishna, Working in Tiles Shop

P.W.151: Nama Trimurthulu, Agriculture

P.W.152: Konreddy Naga Purushotham, Agriculture

P.W.153: Chitturi Gangadhar Rao, Agriculture

P.W.154: Janapala Suryanarayana, Electric Work

P.W.155: Chilakanti Srinivas, Agriculture

P.W.156: Guduri Prasad, Agriculture

P.W.157: Sheshapu Rama Mohana Rao, Mason work

P.W.158: Chilakanti Venkateswar Rao, Agriculture

P.W.159: Ponnam Venkateswara Rao, Agriculture

P.W.160: Meesala Srinivas Rao, Tailoring work

P.W.161: Sunkara Madhubabu, Agriculture

P.W.162: Maddula Venkata Subramanyam, Business

P.W.163: Yalla Narayana Rao, Business

P.W.164: Ch.N.V.S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate

P.W.165: Pedisetty Subramaneswara Rao, Business

P.W.166: Shaik Madina Basha, Business

P.W.167: Danthuluri Venkata satya Suryanarayana Raju, Cultivation 67

P.W.168: Adabala Kumara swamy, Resident of Samalkot

P.W.169: Medisetti Gangadhar Rao, Sweet Shop

P.W.170: Nakka Satya Prasad, Business

P.W.171: Dammu Ramanamma, Housewife

P.W.172: Korukonda Satyanarayana, Resident of Peddapuram

P.W.173: Kotha Rajeswari, Housewife

P.W.174: Tummalapalli Sivaprasad, Auto Driver

P.W.175: Vulavala Santhamma, Housewife

P.W.176: Ganapavarapu Venkateswara Rao , Kirana Shop

P.W.177: Nalla Kishore Kumar, Resident of I.Polavaram 

P.W.178: Korukonda Chalapathi Rao, Medical Shop

P.W.179: Peddinti Paradesi, Coolie in iron shop

P.W.180: Tatikonda Vijay, Gold smith

P.W.181: Yalla Veera Venkata Subbarao, Business

P.W.182: R.S.Kumareswaran, District Proh & Excise Officer, Eluru

P.W.183: Putti Maha Siva, Transport

P.W.184: S. Radha Mallika, Bank Manager, IOB, Kakinada

P.W.185: A.V.V. Satyanarayana, Bank Manager, Indian Bank, Kakinada P.W.186: Smt. Pidaparthi Kalyani, Bank Manager, IDBI, Main Road, Kakinada P.W.187: P.P. Avinash, Bank Manager, Andhra Bank, Siddhantham, W.G.Dt. P.W.188: G. Deepika, Income Tax Inspector, Ward­1, Kakinada

P.W.189: B. Siva Chandra Prasad, Bank Manager, Andhra Bank, Chebrolu, W.G.Dt. P.W.190: Ch. Nagalakshmamma, Tahsildar, Inavilli

P.W.191: A. V. Ramana Rao, Tahsildar, Unguturu

P.W.192: Nandipati Pramanvitha, MPDO, Unguturu

P.W.193: Neelapu Gurumurthy Reddy, Tahsildar, Penugonda

P.W.194: Sundam Srinivasu Dora, MPDO, Penugonda

P.W.195: V.S.V.V.K.V.R Murarjee, Tahsildar, Kakinada

P.W.196: Balla Sai Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, Kajuluru

P.W.197: P.V.Seethapathi Rao, Tahsildar, Kakinada

P.W.198: Ranki Veera Venkateswar Rao, Tahsildar, Gollaprolu

P.W.199: K. Apparao, MPDO, Karapa

P.W.200: P.Srinivas Rao, Tahsildar, Karapa

P.W.201: Sista Lakshmi Narasakumari, Tahsildar, Samalkot

P.W.202: Katu Subash, Tahsildar, Pedapudi

P.W.203: S. Pothuraju, Tahsildar, Tallarevu 68

P.W.204: K. Ravi Kumar Goud, Hand writing expert, FSL, Red hills, AP, Hyderabad. P.W.205: V.Jithendra, Tahsildar, Peddapuram

P.W.206: B. Sridevi, Tahsildar, Jaggampeta

P.W.207: Katta V.V.Satyanarayana, Tahsildar, Gandepalli

P.W.208: N. Dorakayya, Tahsildar, Rangampeta

P.W.209: Y. Srinivas, District Head Housing, A.P Housing, Kakinada

P.W.210: S.K.D.V.Prasad, Excise Superintendent, Proh & Excise Department, Kakinada

P.W.211: S.K.D.V.Prasad, Excise Superintendent, Proh & Excise Department, Kakinada

P.W.212: K. Nagaraju, Section Officer, AP Secretariat, Revenue Department, Andhra Pradesh P.W.213:Sodagam Yesu Prasad, Sales Manager

P.W.214:S.Murali Mohan, DSP, Mylavaram

P.W.215:Ch.Lakshmipathi, Additional S.P.

P.W.216:B. Ramakrishna, DSP, Ramachandrapuram

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:

P.W.1/Ex.P1:Search Proceedings

P.W.1/Ex.P2:Mediator Report

P.W.1/Ex.P3:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 100 pages P.W.1/Ex.P4:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages P.W.1/Ex.P5:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 72 pages P.W.1/Ex.P6:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 74 pages P.W.1/Ex.P7:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 76 pages P.W.1/Ex.P8:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.1/Ex.P9:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages P.W.1/Ex.P10:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 100 pages P.W.1/Ex.P11:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.1/Ex.P12:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.1/Ex.P13:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages P.W.1/Ex.P14:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages 69

P.W.1/Ex.P15:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P16:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P17:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 62 pages P.W.1/Ex.P18:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 58 pages P.W.1/Ex.P19:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.1/Ex.P20: File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P21:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P22:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 74 pages P.W.1/Ex.P23:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 64 pages P.W.1/Ex.P24:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 58 pages P.W.1/Ex.P25:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P26:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 64 pages P.W.1/Ex.P27:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 62 pages P.W.1/Ex.P28:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P29:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 58 pages P.W.1/Ex.P30:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 60 pages P.W.1/Ex.P31:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 62 pages P.W.1/Ex.P32:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 72 pages P.W.1/Ex.P33:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 60 pages P.W.1/Ex.P34:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 60 pages P.W.1/Ex.P35:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P36:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 64 pages P.W.1/Ex.P37:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 62 pages P.W.1/Ex.P38:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages P.W.1/Ex.P39:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.1/Ex.P40:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 76 pages P.W.1/Ex.P41:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 70 pages 70

P.W.1/Ex.P42:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 32 pages P.W.1/Ex.P43:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 74 pages P.W.1/Ex.P44:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 66 pages P.W.1/Ex.P45:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 78 pages P.W.1/Ex.P46:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 68 pages P.W.2/Ex.P47:Search Proceedings

P.W.2/Ex.P48:Mediators Report

P.W.2/Ex.P49:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 44 pages P.W.2/Ex.P50:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 52 pages P.W.2/Ex.P51:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 49 pages P.W.2/Ex.P52:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 53 pages P.W.2/Ex.P53:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 53 pages P.W.2/Ex.P54:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 53 pages P.W.2/Ex.P55:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P56:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 45 pages P.W.2/Ex.P57:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 47 pages P.W.2/Ex.P58:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 51 pages P.W.2/Ex.P59:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 44 pages P.W.2/Ex.P60:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 41 pages P.W.2/Ex.P61:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 55 pages P.W.2/Ex.P62:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P63:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 47 pages P.W.2/Ex.P64:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 39 pages P.W.2/Ex.P65:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 49 pages P.W.2/Ex.P66:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P67:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 57 pages P.W.2/Ex.P68:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 44 pages P.W.2/Ex.P69:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 51 pages 71

P.W.2/Ex.P70:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P71:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 38 pages P.W.2/Ex.P72:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P73:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 40 pages P.W.2/Ex.P74:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 37 pages P.W.2/Ex.P75:File containing A1,A2,A3,A2(S) Forms and other related documents total 48 pages P.W.3/Ex.P76:Search Proceedings 

P.W.3/Ex.P77:Mediators Report dated 05.03.2012 

P.W.4/Ex.P78:Search List 

P.W.4/Ex.P79:Search Proceedings

P.W.4/Ex.P80:Outward Register Vol.1 of IML Depot, Amalapuram

P.W.4/Ex.P81:Outward Register Vol.2 of IML Depot, Amalapuram

P.W.4/Ex.P82:Outward Register Vol.3 of IML Depot, Amalapuram

P.W.4/Ex.P83:Attendance Register for the year 2012 of IML Depot, Amalapuram P.W.4/Ex.P84:Attendance Register for Proh.&Excise SI & Staff, IML Depot, Amalapuram P.W.5/Ex.P85:Covering Letter dated 13.04.2012 along with the particulars P.W.5/Ex.P86:Covering Letter dated 10.05.2012 along with the particulars P.W.6/Ex.P87:Covering Letter dated 11.04.2012 along with the particulars P.W.7/Ex.P88:Covering Letter dated 14.05.2012 along with the particulars and CD P.W.7/Ex.P89:Covering Letter dated 14.05.2012 along with the particulars P.W.7/Ex.P90:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7

P.W.8/Ex.P91:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8

P.W.9/Ex.P92:Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9

P.W.10/Ex.P93:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.10

P.W.11/Ex.P94:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.11

P.W.12/Ex.P95:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.12

P.W.13/Ex.P96:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.13

P.W.14/Ex.P97:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.14

P.W.15/Ex.P98:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.15

P.W.16/Ex.P99:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.16

P.W.17/Ex.P100:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.17

P.W.18/Ex.P101:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.18

P.W.19/Ex.P102:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.19 72

P.W.20/Ex.P103:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.20

P.W.21/Ex.P104:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.21

P.W.22/Ex.P105:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.22

P.W.23/Ex.P106:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.23

P.W.24/Ex.P107:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.24

P.W.25/Ex.P108:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.25

P.W.26/Ex.P109:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.26

P.W.27/Ex.P110:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.27

P.W.28/Ex.P111:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.28

P.W.29/Ex.P112:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.29

P.W.30/Ex.P113:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.30

P.W.31/Ex.P114:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.31

P.W.32/Ex.P115:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.32

P.W.33/Ex.P116:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.33

P.W.34/Ex.P117:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.34

P.W.35/Ex.P118:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.35

P.W.36/Ex.P119:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.36

P.W.37/Ex.P120:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.37

P.W.38/Ex.P121:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.38

P.W.39/Ex.P122:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.39

P.W.40/Ex.P123:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.40

P.W.41/Ex.P124:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.41

P.W.42/Ex.P125:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.42

P.W.43/Ex.P126:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.43

P.W.44/Ex.P127:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.44

P.W.45/Ex.P128:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.45

P.W.46/Ex.P129:Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.46

P.W.47/Ex.P130:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.47

P.W.48/Ex.P131:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.48

P.W.49/Ex.P132:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.49

P.W.50/Ex.P133:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.50

P.W.51/Ex.P134:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.51

P.W.52/Ex.P135:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.52

P.W.53/Ex.P136:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.53

P.W.54/Ex.P137:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.54

P.W.55/Ex.P138:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.55

P.W.56/Ex.P139:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.56 73

P.W.57/Ex.P140:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.57

P.W.58/Ex.P141:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.58

P.W.59/Ex.P142:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.59

P.W.60/Ex.P143:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.60

P.W.61/Ex.P144:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.61

P.W.62/Ex.P145:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.62

P.W.63/Ex.P146:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.63

P.W.64/Ex.P147:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.64

P.W.65/Ex.P148:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.65

P.W.66/Ex.P149:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.66

P.W.67/Ex.P150:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.67

P.W.68/Ex.P151:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.68

P.W.69/Ex.P152:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.69

P.W.70/Ex.P153:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.70

P.W.71/Ex.P154:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.71

P.W.72/Ex.P155:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.72

P.W.73/Ex.P156:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.73

P.W.74/Ex.P157:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.74

P.W.75/Ex.P158:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.75

P.W.76/Ex.P159:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.76

P.W.77/Ex.P160:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.77

P.W.78/Ex.P161:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.78

P.W.79/Ex.P162:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.79

P.W.80/Ex.P163:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.80

P.W.81/Ex.P164:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.81

P.W.82/Ex.P165:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.82

P.W.83/Ex.P166:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.83

P.W.84/Ex.P167:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.84

P.W.85/Ex.P168:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.85

P.W.86/Ex.P169:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.86

P.W.87/Ex.P170:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.87

P.W.88/Ex.P171:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.88

P.W.89/Ex.P172:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.89

P.W.90/Ex.P173:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.90

P.W.91/Ex.P174:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.91

P.W.92/Ex.P175:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.92

P.W.93/Ex.P176:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.93 74

P.W.94/Ex.P177:Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statements of 12 licenced holders P.W.95/Ex.P178:Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statements of 10 licenced holders P.W.95/Ex.P179:Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statements of 03 licenced holders P.W.96/Ex.P180:Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statements of 05 licenced holders P.W.96/Ex.P181:Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statements of 01 licenced holder P.W.97/Ex.P182:Letter dated 26.10.2012 with enclosures

P.W.98/Ex.P183:Letter dated 04.07.2012 with details of 30 licenced holders P.W.98/Ex.P184:Letter dated 03.10.2012 along with account statement

P.W.98/Ex.P185:Letter dated 03.10.2012 along with account statement

P.W.99/Ex.P186:Letter dated 10.07.2012 along with account statement

P.W.99/Ex.P187:Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statements of three persons P.W.100/Ex.P188 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of Dasam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana P.W.101/Ex.P189 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of Dasam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana P.W.102/Ex.P190 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statements of 04 licenced holders P.W.103/Ex.P191 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of Katta Subbarao P.W.104/Ex.P192 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of Jakkampudi Yesu Babu P.W.105/Ex.P193 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of Lankpalli Rambabu P.W.106/Ex.P194 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of IT Returns relating to A4 wine shop licensee P.W.106/Ex.P195 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of IT Returns relating to A4 wine shop licensee P.W.106/Ex.P196 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of the information about filing of IT Returns relating to A4 wine shop licensee P.W.107/Ex.P197 :Letter dated 03.10.2012 with statement of the information about filing of IT Returns relating to A4 wine shop licensee by Rudra Rama Satya Anand Kumar P.W.108/Ex.P198 :Letter dated 11.07.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P199 :Letter dated 11.07.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P200 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P201 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P202 :Letter dated 11.07.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram 75

P.W.108/Ex.P203 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P204 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P205 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P206 :Letter dated 11.07.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P207 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P208 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with enclosures given by Tahsildar, Malikipuram P.W.108/Ex.P209 :Letter dated 23.10.2012 of Tahsildar, Malikipuram with report of VRO, Malikipuram and VRO, Gudimetllanka P.W.108/Ex.P210 :Letter dated 23.10.2012 of Tahsildar, Malikipuram with the report of VRO, Gollapalem, VRO, Gubbalapalem, VRO, Gudimellanka, VRO, Gudapalli P.W.108/Ex.P211 :Letter dated 17.05.2012 of Tahsildar, Malikipluram with the reports of VROs. P.W.109/Ex.P212 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P213 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P214 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P215 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P216 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P217 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P218 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P219 :Letter dated 04.06.2012 with the enclosures given by Tahasildar, Sakinetipalli P.W.109/Ex.P220 :Letter dated 17.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.109/Ex.P221 :Letter enclosed the reports of VRO, Sakhinetipalli village, Tahilsdar, Sakhinetipalli Mandal P.W.110/Ex.P222 :Letter enclosed the report of VRO, Kapileswarapuram, Block­II; House valuation certificate & Photo of the house P.W.110/Ex.P223 :Letter dated 26.10.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Kapilesarapuram along with house valuation certificate. P.W.111/Ex.P224 :Letter enclosed the statements, documents and other relevant papers of the persons. P.W.111/Ex.P225 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures P.W.111/Ex.P225 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures P.W.111/Ex.P226 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures 76

P.W.111/Ex.P227 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures P.W.111/Ex.P228 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures P.W.111/Ex.P229 :Letter dated 21.07.2012 of the then Tahsildar, Razole along with enclosures P.W.111/Ex.P230 :Letter dated 17.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.112/Ex.P231 :Letter enclosed the relevant papers of the person

P.W.112/Ex.P232 :Letter enclosed the relevant papers of the person

P.W.112/Ex.P233 :Letter enclosed the relevant papers of the person

P.W.112/Ex.P234 :Letter enclosed the relevant papers of the person

P.W.112/Ex.P235 :Letter enclosed the reports of the concerned VROs

P.W.112/Ex.P236 :Letter dated 17.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.113/Ex.P237 :Letter enclosed the report of VRO, Nagullanka; computer Adangal copies of the land P.W.113/Ex.P238 :Letter dated 17.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.114/Ex.P239 :Letter dated 20.10.2012 of the MPDO, P. Gannavaram along with the report of Panchayat Secretary, Nagullanka P.W.115/Ex.P240 :Letter dated 22.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.116/Ex.P241 :Letter dated 21.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VRO’s P.W.117/Ex.P242 :Letter dated 10.02.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner Pro & Excise department, Kakinada with the details P.W.117/Ex.P243 :Details are pertaining to 30 A.4 Shops 

P.W.118/Ex.P244 :Letter dated 02.05.2012 of the Superintendent Pro & Excise department, Amalapuram with the report P.W.118/Ex.P245 :Letter dated 01.10.2012 of the Superintendent Proh & Excise department, Amalapuram with the report P.W.118/Ex.P246 : Letter dated 20.09.2012 of the Superintendent Pro & Excise department, Amalapuram with the service particulars of A.O.2 P.W.119/Ex.P247 :Letters of VROs Krapa, Siripalli, Modupalli, Viluvalapalli, Thottaramudi etc., P.W.120/Ex.P248 :Letter dated 17.10.2012 along with subscriber detail reports of two phone numbers. P.W.121/Ex.P249 : Letter dated 09.05.2012 

P.W.122/Ex.P250 :Outward register Vol­1 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 13.07.2010 to 15.10.2010 containing 01 to 193 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P251 :Outward register Vol­2 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 16.10.2010 to 18.01.2011 containing 01 to 196 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P252 :Outward register Vol­3 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 19.01.2011 to 08.04.2011 containing 1801 to 1999 sheets 77

P.W.122/Ex.P253 :Outward register Vol­4 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 09.04.2011 to 27.06.2011 containing 01 to 193 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P254 :Outward register Vol­5 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 28.06.2011 to 26.09.2011 containing 29802 to 29998 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P255 :Outward register Vol­6 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 27.09.2011 to 06.01.2012 containing 01 to 195 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P256 :Outward register Vol­7 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry from 07.01.2012 to 31.03.2012 containing 01 to 185 sheets P.W.122/Ex.P257 :Attendance register for the year 2012 of IML Depot, Rajahmundry P.W.122/Ex.P258 :Attendance registers for Proh. & Excise SI & Staff, IML Depot, Rajahmundry P.W.122/Ex.P259 :Section 165 Cr. P.C proceedings 

P.W.122/Ex.P260 :Search Proceedings 

P.W.122/Ex.P261 :Search list 

P.W.122/Ex.P262 :Vehicle Out Going Register Vol­2 of IML Depot, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P263 :Vehicle Out Going Register Vol­3 of IML Depot, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P264 :Vehicle Out Going Register Vol­4 of IML Depot, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P265 :Vehicle Out Going Register Vol­4 of IML Depot, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P266 :Attendance register for the year 2012 of IML Depot staff, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P267 :E.S.O Attendance register for the year, 2012 of IML Depot, Samalkota P.W.122/Ex.P268 :Section 165 Cr. P.C proceedings are marked as Ex.P268. P.W.122/Ex.P269 :Search Proceedings/Mediator Report 

P.W.122/Ex.P270 :Search List 

P.W.123/Ex.P271 :Search proceedings 

P.W.123/Ex.P272 : Saving Bank Passbook A/c No.003101000021367 in the name of A.3 in Indian Overseas Bank, Kakinada P.W.123/Ex.P273 : Cheque book of ICICI Bank, Kakinada Branch bearing A/c. No.028001516039 P.W.123/Ex.P274 : Four ­Godarigunta belt shops, Two – Korupalli belt shops, Karapa and R.K belt shops. P.W.123/Ex.P275 : Four ­Godarigunta belt shops, Two – Korupalli belt shops, Karapa and R.K belt shops P.W.123/Ex.P276 : Four ­Godarigunta belt shops, Two – Korupalli belt shops, Karapa and R.K belt shops. P.W.123/Ex.P277 :Four ­Godarigunta belt shops, Two – Korupalli belt shops, Karapa and R.K belt shops. P.W.123/Ex.P278 : Mediators Report. 

P.W.124/Ex.P279 : Letter dt.14.5.2012 with the particulars

P.W.124/Ex.P280 : Letter along with the sheets of register 78

P.W.124/Ex.P281 : Letter with register pertaining to two syndicate i.e. Sri Surya Syndicate of Chikkala Dorababu and Sri Siva Syndicate of Vennaeswar Rao P.W.124/Ex.P282 : The 2nd register pertaining to six syndicate i.e. Sri Venkateswara Syndicate of Nunna Satyanarayana, Sri Rama Syndicate of V. Prasad Chowdary, Padmanabhareddy Syndicate of Padmanabhareddy, RVR Syndicate of R.Venkateswar Rao, Bujji Syndicate of Avidi Bujji and Adigowri Syndicate of Chinna P.W.124/Ex.P283 : The 3rd register pertaining to six syndicate i.e. Sri Srinivasa Reddy Syndicate of Srinivasareddy, Sri Yesuraju Syndicate of Yesuraju, Nanaji Syndicate of Chevella Apparao, Ramu Syndicate of Ramachandra Rao, Nani Syndicate of Nani and Mamidala Syndicate of Gangireddy P.W.124/Ex.P284 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.124

P.W.128/Ex.P285 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.128

P.W.129/Ex.P286 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.129

P.W.130/Ex.P287 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.130

P.W.131/Ex.P288 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.131

P.W.132/Ex.P289 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.132

P.W.133/Ex.P290 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.133

P.W.134/Ex.P291 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.134

P.W.135/Ex.P292 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.135

P.W.136/Ex.P293 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.136

P.W.137/Ex.P294 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.137

P.W.138/Ex.P295 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.138

P.W.139/Ex.P296 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.139

P.W.140/Ex.P297 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.140

P.W.141/Ex.P298 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.141

P.W.142/Ex.P299 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.142

P.W.143/Ex.P300 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.143

P.W.144/Ex.P301 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.144

P.W.145/Ex.P302 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.145

P.W.146/Ex.P303 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.146

P.W.147/Ex.P304 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.147

P.W.148/Ex.P305 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.148

P.W.149/Ex.P306 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.149

P.W.150/Ex.P307 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.150

P.W.151/Ex.P308 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.151

P.W.152/Ex.P309 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.152

P.W.153/Ex.P310 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.153 79

P.W.154/Ex.P311 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.154

P.W.155/Ex.P312 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.155

P.W.156/Ex.P313 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.156

P.W.157/Ex.P314 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.157

P.W.158/Ex.P315 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.158

P.W.159/Ex.P316 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.159

P.W.160/Ex.P317 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.160

P.W.161/Ex.P318 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.161

P.W.162/Ex.P319 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.162

P.W.163/Ex.P320 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.163

P.W.164/Ex.P321 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.164

P.W.165/Ex.P322 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.165

P.W.166/Ex.P323 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.166

P.W.167/Ex.P324 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.167

P.W.168/Ex.P325 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.168

P.W.169/Ex.P326 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.169

P.W.170/Ex.P327 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.170

P.W.171/Ex.P328 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.171

P.W.172/Ex.P329 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.172

P.W.173/Ex.P330 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.173

P.W.174/Ex.P331 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.174

P.W.175/Ex.P332 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.175

P.W.176/Ex.P333 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.176

P.W.177/Ex.P334 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.177

P.W.178/Ex.P335 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.178

P.W.179/Ex.P336 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.179

P.W.180/Ex.P337 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.180

P.W.181/Ex.P338 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.181

P.W.182/Ex.P339 :Covering letter with the service particulars

P.W.183/Ex.P340 :Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.183

P.W.184/Ex.P341 :Account statement with covering letter dated 10.07.2012 P.W.185/Ex.P342 : Letter dated 01.10.2012 with account statements of 17 licensee holders P.W.185/Ex.P343 : Letter with the names of 16 licensee holders with Pay­ in­slips of the bank guarantees on the counter guarantee of each other P.W.186/Ex.P344 : Letter dated 01.10.2012 with account statements of the above said 17 licensee holders P.W.187/Ex.P345 : Letter dated 03.10.2012 with Account statements of the above said persons 80

P.W.188/Ex.P346 : Letter dated 03.10.2012 with the details of 18 licensee holders income tax particulars P.W.189/Ex.P347: Letter dated 03.10.2012 with account statements of the above said persons P.W.190/Ex.P348: Letter with details of Tahsildar is marked Ex.P348.

P.W.191/Ex.P349 : Letter with pink ration.

P.W.191/Ex.P350 : Attested copy of Letter with adhar card

P.W.191/Ex.P351 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P352 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P353 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P354 : Letter dated 31.05.2012.

P.W.191/Ex.P355 : Letter with pink ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P356 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P357 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P358 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P359 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P360 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P361 : Letter with antyodaya ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P362 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P363 : Letter with pink ration card.

P.W.191/Ex.P364 : Letter with details of the said Padmavathi.

P.W.192/Ex.P365 : Letter dated 23.10.2012 of Sri A.Ramu, the then MPDO with the enquiry report and details (four pages) of the Extension Officer P.W.193/Ex.P366 : Letter with white ration card.

P.W.194/Ex.P367 : Letter dated 30.10.2012 of Smt. V. Vijayalakshmi, the then MPDO with the enquiry report and details (three pages) P.W.195/Ex.P368 : Letter dated 30.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of the Kakinada Rural Mandal P.W.195/Ex.P369 : The said letter is marked as Ex.P 369.

P.W.196/Ex.P370 : Letter of Tahsildar P. Srinivas Rao 

P.W.196/Ex.P371 : Letter dated 29.10.2012 of the said Tahsildar M. Venkateswarlu. P.W.196/Ex.P372 : Letter dated 29.10.2012 of the said Tahsildar M. Venkateswarlu P.W.196/Ex.P373 : Letter dated 31.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of the Kajuluru Mandal P.W.197/Ex.P374 : Letter dated 21.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 7 VRO’s of the Kakinada Urban Mandal P.W.197/Ex.P375 : Letter dated 23.06.2012 with white ration card with the report of the VRO. P.W.197/Ex.P376 : Letter dated 26.10.2012 of the said Tahsildar P. Rama Murthy 81

P.W.198/Ex.P377 : Letter dated 21.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 14 VRO’s of the Gollaprolu Mandal P.W.199/Ex.P378 : Letter dated 26.10.2012 with the enquiry report of Panchayat Secretary, Karapa P.W.200/Ex.P379 : Letter dated 20.07.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of the Karapa Mandal. P.W.201/Ex.P380 : Letter dated 18.07.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 25 VRO’s of the villages of Samalkota Mandal P.W.202/Ex.P381 : Letter dated 05.06.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of the villages of Pedapudi Mandal P.W.203/Ex.P382 : Letter dated 05.06.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 20 VRO’s of the villages of Tallarevu Mandal P.W.204/Ex.P383 : Report/Opinion. 

P.W.205/Ex.P384 : Letter dated 21.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 26 VRO’s of the villages of Peddapuram Mandal P.W.206/Ex.P385 : Letter dated 20.07.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of the villages of Jaggampeta Mandal P.W.207/Ex.P386 : Letter dated 21.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 13 VRO’s of the villages of Gandepalli Mandal P.W.208/Ex.P387 : Leetter dated 16.06.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 17 VRO’s of the villages of Rangampeta Mandal P.W.209/Ex.P388 : Letter dated 09.05.2012

P.W.210/Ex.P389 : Letter dated 10.02.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner Pro & Excise department, Kakinada with the details P.W.210/Ex.P390 : Letter with details are pertaining to 18 A.4 SUS liquor shop licensees P.W.211/Ex.P391 : Letter dated 02.05.2012 of the Superintendent Pro & Excise department, Kakinada with the report P.W.211/Ex.P392 : Letter dated 01.10.2012 with compact disk of the Superintendent Proh& Excise department, Amalapuram with the report P.W.212/Ex.P393 : Sanction Order with the signature of S. P. Singh the then Prl. Secretary for revenue to government of Andhra Pradesh. P.W.213/Ex.P394 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.213

P.W.216/Ex.P395 : Memo dated 14.04.2012 issued by the DG, ACB, A.P, Hyderabad P.W.216/Ex.P396 : Occurrence report dated 14.04.2012 with Annexure

P.W.216/Ex.P397 : Original First Information Report dated 15.04.2012.

Documents marked on behalf of Defence:

P.W.124/Ex.D1: Xerox copy of Andhra Pradesh Beverages Coroporation, Hyderabad Job Chart for IML Depot and 82 circular K/92/2006/Excise Lease yr/2010.12/dated 26.06.2010 P.W.124/Ex.D2: Xerox copies of job chart for IML Depots and circular K/92/2006/Excise Lease yr/2010.12/ dated 26.06.2010 P.W.212/Ex.X1 : Authorization

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram 83

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 

Calendar of Case tried by the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Calendar Case No.149/2018

Dates of:

OccurrenceComplaintApprehensionCommencementClosure ofSentence of accusedof trialtrial 05.03.201205.03.201205.02.201409.08.202315.03.202428.03.2024

Name of the Complainant: The State Represented by Range Inspector­II, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District. Name of the Accused:1. Kunatharaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju @ Chanti Raju,Age 58 years, S/o Narasimha Murthy Raju, D.No.5­40/1, besides Pattabirama Petrol Bunk, Sakhinetipalli Road, Malikipuram, East Godavari District (leader of Malikipuram Liquor Group)

2. Karri Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Murthy, Age 59 years, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Razole, East Godavari District. (Now retired from service)

3. Mamidala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Suribabu, Age 46 years, N/o Gurajanapalli Village, R/o: D.No.67­23­1/A, Nagamalli Thota Colony, Kakinada­3, East Godavari District (leader of S.U.S. Liquor Group)

4. Kunareddy Rama Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 56 years, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kakinada North, East Godavari District Offence: U/Secs.8,12,14,13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.120(B) r/w 34 & 109 IPC

Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: A1 to A4 are found not guilty

Judgment Pronounced: 28.03.2024

Explanation for Delay:

The record in C.C.No.3/2014 was received by transfer from Special

Judge, SPE & ACB Court, Vijayawada as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.131 Home (Courts­A) Department, dated 02.12.2016 and

ROC.No.109/E1/07 dt:07.12.2017 and the same is renumbered as 84

C.C.No.149/2018 on the file of this Court in the month of June, 2018. Notice was issued to both sides. Thereafter the Accused made their appearance on 09.10.2018. Thereafter matter was heard and Judgment is pronounced on 28.03.2024.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences

U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(B) of

India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 &

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A4 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The bail bonds of the accused are in force after lapse of appeal time.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajahmahendravaram

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1) The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram.

2) The Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri U.U.Prasad

Special Judge for the trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

Monday, 1 st day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.50/2018

Between:­  The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru

West Godavari District. ... Complainant.

AND

1. Gutta Satyanarayana, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, Age 52 years, R/o D.No.25­9­17, Narasimharaopet, Eluru, West Godavari District. (Leader of GSN Liquor Group)

2. Guduri Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Ramadasu, Age 42 years, Business, R/o Addepally Mareswarao’s House, Brodipet 1st Lane, Palakol, West Godavari District (Leader of Janapriya Liquor Group)

3. Banka Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad S/o Appala Swamy, Sekhar Veedhi, Power pet Toorpukapula Kalyana Mandapam, R/o Chanukypuri colony, Near Saibaba Temple, Eluru, W.G.Dist (Leader of Dwaraka Liquor Group)

4. Patchipulusu Srinivasa Rao, S/o: Venkata Bala Krishna Rao, Age 50 years, R/o: 7B­12­34, Toorpu Veedhi, Eluru. (Accountant of GSN Informal Liquor Group)(Died)

5. Ganugula Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 46 years, formerly SHO, P & E Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. Now at SHO, P&E Station, Palakol

6. Moganti Raja Sekhar, S/o Bhaskra Rao, Age 55 years Formerly SHO, P&E, Narsapuram, W.G.Dist, now at Tallarevu, East Godavari District.

7. D. Raghuma Reddy, S/o Sri Ram Reddy, Age 46 years Formerly SHO, P&E, Bhimadole, West Godavari District, now at A.C, Distilleries, Vijayawada. (Case against Accused No.4 abated) … Accused 2

This case has come up on 28.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State­Complainant and of and Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu and Sri K.Hemanth Srinivas, Advocates for A.1 to

A.3 and A.5 to A.7 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.1/RCO­EWG/2012 charged U/Sec.7, 12 & 14, 13(1)(a)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120­B, 109 & 34 of Indian

Penal Code and section 41 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w Rule 9, Sub Rule 10 of

A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and conditions of License) Rules, 2005 against Accused Nos.1 to 7 stating that in this case Accused No.1 is the

Leader of G.S.N. Liquor Group, Accused No.2 is the Leader of Janapriya Liquor

Group, Accused No.3 is the Leader of Dwaraka Liquor Group, Accused No.4 is the Accountant of GSN Informal Liquor Group (died) and Accused Nos.5 to 7 are the SHOs of Prohibition and Excise Station, Eluru, Narasapuram and

Bhimadole respectively within his jurisdiction the wine shops and the syndicate offices are situated. Accused Nos.1 conspired with A.5, A.2 conspired with A.6 and A.3 conspired with A.7 and formed themselves into respective syndicates and ran the wine shops violating the A.P. Excise Rules i.e., MRP rates and selling cheap liquor, maintaining illegal belt shops and not maintaining prescribed timings and sell loose liquor for consumption. Further, they developed illegal nexus with the Excise Officials, Police and others to make liquor prices illegal business. As per the records seized in the syndicate office of

A.1, the Police Officials received a bribe of Rs.1,30,950/­ and accordingly,

Accused Officer Nos.5 being a public servant abused his official position by resorting to corrupt and illegal means and received a bribe amount as illegal 3 gratification from said Liquor Syndicate. Similarly, A.6 and A.7 also abused their positions and received mamools from A.2 and A.3 respectively.

2.On credible information, a surprise check was conducted in Karimnagar

Town on 13.12.2011 by intercepting a TATA Vista Vehicle to the officials of the

Excise Department and an amount of Rs.3,62,640/­ was recovered and seized under cover of panchanama by the ACB Officials in the presence of mediators.

As the amount was suspected to be the amount collected towards a bribe for favouring the owners of the wine shops, a case in Cr. No.15/RCO­KNR/2011 was registered on 14.12.2011 U/Sec.13(1)(a)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and Sec.34, 120­B IPC and Sec.41(1)(a) & 102 Cr.P.C. against the

Excise Officials. At the request of DSP, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad, the DSP,

ACB, Vijayawada Range conducted searches on 16.12.2011 at the liquor syndicate office being run under the leadership of Accused No.1 and the searches were conducted in the presence of mediators and seized documents about the illegal amount that was paid to public servants on different dates during the period from September 2010 to 16.12.2011 under the cover of

Mediators Report.

On 05.03.2012, the Inspector by name B.Srinivas/PW.196 along with

Mediator/PW.3 and another, held searches in the office of Excise

Superintendent Prohibition & Excise Department, Bhimavaram. On 05.03.2012 secured the details of A4 shop license holders throughout the District, under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P.71.

Based on the information about organized crime, in said case, the investigation officer held searches and found that A1 with the help of Excise

Inspector/A5, A2 with the help of Excise Inspector/A6 and A3 with the help of

Excise Inspector/A7 had maintained individual syndicates. Initially, the 4

Investigating Officer held a search in the Liquor syndicate office being run by

A1 on the 1st floor of D.No.25­5­57, N.R.Peta, Eluru Town on 16.12.2011 in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2 and seized one notebook maintained from the month of September 2010 to 16.12.2011 under the cover of mediators report.

On analysis of the record, they found that A1 maintained a Liquor syndicate shop with 14 wine shops and out of them, 6 were binamis. A4 was an accountant and maintained book and it discloses entries about payment of mamools to police officials for 6 wine shops under the liquor syndicate.

On preparation of scrutiny report and with the permission of the DG.ACB crime 01/RCO­ACB­EWG­2012 u/Sec.465, 468, 471, 120­B, 34, 109 I.P.C. and

Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of I.P.C. Act, 1988 of A.C.B. of Eluru on 11.04.2012.

During the investigation, information was obtained from the District Authority regarding successful bidders and license holders. Out of 473 license holders, 179 were processing B.P.L. cards. On 08.06.2012, the Investigating

Officer/PW.240 along with mediator/PW.7 and another visited the house of

Accused No.2, held search U/sec.165 of Cr.P.C. and enquired and the Accused

No.2 confessed about syndicate Janapriya Liquor syndicate with 14 wine shops and out of which 14 license holders are white ration card holders and A.2 made payments to 9 binami shops and further confessed about violations of excise laws. 

Similarly, in the course of the investigation done by Investigating

Officer/PW.240, witnesses reported that Accused No.3 is running Dwaraka

Liquor Syndicate with 36 wine shops. The witnesses examined by the investigating officer also stated that A1 and A2 also violated the excise laws.

Accordingly, all the Accused no.1 to 3 conspired with Excise Inspectors/A5 to

A7 respectively and maintained belt shops and A5 to A7/Excise Inspectors 5 received mamools from A1 to A3 respectively to ignore rules and regulations of excise laws.

The Accused Nos.1 to 3 are leaders of the liquor groups as per the prearranged plan developed illegal nexus with the officials of Excise, Police and others and paid huge mamools to them to make an unlawful gain in the liquor business in violation of conditions of licenses, provisions of Excise Act and

Rules. So that they would not take any action as mandated under the provisions of Excise Laws for running business with binami licensees and for other violations such as sale of liquor over and above MRP rates, operation of illegal belt shops, not maintaining the prescribed timings, sale of loose liquor and allowing consumption at the wine shops without license or permission etc.,

Thus Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired and colluded with Accused Nos.5 to 7/

Excise SHOs in running of informal liquor groups at the West Godavari District.

The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (VIG.V) Department, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad accorded Sanction to prosecute the Accused Nos.5 to 7 in a Court of Law vide G.O. Ms. Nos.210, 211 dated 16.05.2014.

3.The case was taken cognizance punishable U/Secs.12,14 of Prevention of

Corruption Act r/w 120­B, 109 r/w 34 of the I.P.C and section 41 of A.P. Excise

Act r/w Rule 9, 10, 14 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against A1 to A3 and U/Sec.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 120­B r/w 34 IPC against A5 to A7 and summons were served on the Accused. On the appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished to them.

4. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein, they denied the commission of the offence, thereupon chargessection 120­B of the Indian

Penal Code r/w section 41 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under 6

Rule 14 (9) of A.P. Excise (Lease of the right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005 and 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w

Sec.109 I.P.C. against A1 & A5, A2 & A6 and A3 & A7 separately.

5.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 240 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P368 were marked. The witnesses LW.2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 185, 186 and 205 were given up.

6. On the closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence levelled against them and they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard both sides. Special Public Prosecution argued that the present case has been registered against Accused license holders and Excise inspectors.

Accused No.1 being a license holder, has been maintaining a syndicate consisting of 14 shops situated within the territorial limits of Accused No.5/

Excise Inspector. Accused No.1 with the help of other license holders and employees, used to collect amounts and distribute same to the public servants of various departments i.e., Law and Order police and Excise Police etc. to ignore violations of Excise Laws i.e., sale of liquor exceeding MRP rates, beyond stipulated business hours, allowing the consumers to drink at shops, and illegally maintaining belt shops. During the course of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer seized relevant records. In the presence of the mediators and further secured information from MROs, VROs the Income Tax department etc., to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamies of A1. Further, the Investigating Officer examined Nowkarnamas and other witnesses and recorded their statements to prove that Accused No.1 maintained a syndicate and paid mamools/bribes to the Excise Officials/A5. Similarly, the 7

A2 and A3 license holders maintained individual syndicates by the name of

Janapriya Liquor Syndicate of 14 wine shops and Dwaraka Liquor Syndicate of 36 wine shops respectively and colluded with the Excise Inspector with A6 and

A7 respectively. During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses PW.1 to

240. Though the witnesses i.e., Nowkarnamas shop landlords etc., did not support the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer and mediators supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, the prosecution proved its case. In addition to the charges framed against the accused, the Accused are liable for the offence U/Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8.Counsel for the defence argued that though the investigating officers held such and seized records in the presence of the mediators, none of the records disclosed that Accused No.1 has been running a syndicate office with the 14 wine shops. Similarly, A2 maintained 14 wine shops and A3 maintained 36 wine shops. The Nowkarnamas, landlords, and neighbours examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case but they turned hostile.

Though the prosecution examined revenue officials, VROs, Bank Officials,

Income Tax Officials etc., and marked the documents to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamis of A1, A2 and A3, the evidence of those witnesses and documents do not disclose how the A1, A2 and

A3 are related to the other alleged binami shops and further that evidence do not prove offence against A1 colluded with Excise Inspector/A5, A2 colluded with Excise Inspector/A6 and A3 colluded with A7. Similarly, the evidence of revenue officials and VROs to prove the existence of belt shops within the jurisdiction of the Excise Inspector, the cross­examination of those witnesses disclose that the witnesses have not initiated any criminal action against belt shop owners and accordingly the evidence does not prove the involvement of

Accused No.1 along with Excise Inspector/A5, A2 along with A6 and A3 along 8 with A7. In addition, there is no evidence proving that Excise Inspector/A5 to

A7 received bribes from Accused No. 1 to 3 respectively for allowing them to maintain the syndicate and further maintain wine shops beyond business hours, sell liquor over the MRP price etc., violating the Excise Laws. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Points for determination:

(I)(A) Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A1 with the assistance of the A4 shops license holder in Eluru?

(B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.5/Excise SHO and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.1 and 5 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(C) Whether A1 got paid mamools to Accused No.5/Excise SHO and other officials to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A5?

II(A). Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A2 with the assistance of an A4 shop license holder in Narasapuram?

(B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.6/ Excise SHO and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.2 and 6 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(C) A2 got paid mamools to Accused No.6/Excise SHO and other officials to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A6?

9

III (A) Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A3 with the assistance of A4 shops license holder in Bhimadole?

(B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A7/ Excise SHO and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.3 and 7 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(C) A3 got paid mamools to Accused No.7/Excise SHO and other officials to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A3 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A7?

10. Point (I)(A) there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A1 with the assistance of the A4 shops license holder in Eluru?

During the course of the trial, PW. 1/Mediator, PW.184/The then

Inspector deposed about the search in the office of Liquor Syndicate of A1

Eluru on 16.12.2011 and seizure of records i.e., Ex. P3 under cover of mediators report/Ex.P1.

On perusal Ex. P1, Accused No.1 confessed about payment details of mamools paid on behalf of A4 wine shops to Law and Order Police and Excise

Police etc., It further shows that ACB Police held a search on service of Sec. 165

Cr.P.C. search proceedings. Ex. P368 show that FIR was registered against A1 to A7 with the permission of DG, ACB, Hyderabad.

The evidence of PW.2/Mediator and the evidence of PW.240/DSP deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C.

in the office of the Excise Superintendent on 05.03.2012 and they seized Ex.P5 to P53 files under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P4. On perusal, Ex. P74 shows about search in IML Depot A.P Beverage Corporation Limited, Eluru by 10

P.W. 4/Mediator and P.W. 196/Inspector and others and examined witnesses.

Interestingly, the prosecution examined P.W.4 and 196. 

11. Regarding search warrants are concerned, Sec.99 & 100 deal with the subject. In the instant case, the police followed the search procedure laid down

U/sec.165 Cr.P.C. Though Sec.165 Cr.P.C. empowers the Investigating Officer to search, sec.165 (4) mandates procedure about search warrants dealt

U/sec.100 of Cr.P.C. Sec.93 deals with the procedure of issuing a search warrant. Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure of search in a closed house with a search warrant. 

Sec.100 of Cr. P.C says  " Persons in charge of closed place to allow search­ (1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.

(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub­ section (2) of section 47.

(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made another woman with strict regard to decency. 

(4) 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 order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses, but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person on his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

11 (7) When any person is searched under sub­section(3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)".

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. mandates the Investigating Officer to search a closed house with a search warrant and with the help of local inhabitants. But, in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure laid down

U/sec.93 & 100 Cr. PC. Hence, the alleged search and seizure of documents i.e.

Ex.P2 to P.46 under mediators report/Ex.P2, Ex.P80 to P.84 under mediators report/Ex.P79 are contrary to the provision Sec.100 Cr.P.C. and can not be relied on.

12. To prove that the GSN liquor syndicate run by Accused No.1 for 14 A4 wine shops, the prosecution examined license holders, Nokarnamas, the

Manager and landlord of wine shops. None of the witnesses supported about liquor syndicate being run by A1. Brief evidence of respective A4 licensed shops is produced as follows:

1). G.S.L.No.8

PW.17/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know aboutGutta

Satyanarayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P96.

P.W.22/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows the PW.17 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Sri Viswanadha 

Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P101.

12

LW.38/Building owner is not examined (since died).

2). G.S.L.No.12:

PW.18/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Gutta Satya narayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P97.

P.W.23/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows the PW.18 he is the owner of the Liquor Shop Mrunalini Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama He turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P102.

PW.28/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A1 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.18 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Mrunalini wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P107.

3). G.S.L.No.13: 

PW.19/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Gutta Satya narayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P98.

P.W.24/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows the PW.19 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Hanuman Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P103.

PW.29/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A1 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.19 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Hanuman wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P108.

4). G.S.L.No.34:

LW.29/License Holder is not examined (since died).

13

P.W.25/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows

LW.29 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Ambika Wines and he worked as 

Nowkaranama and him and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P104.

LW.41/Building owner is not examined (since not traced).

5. G.S.L.No.48:

PW.21/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Gutta Satya narayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P100.

P.W.27/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows the PW.21 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Yedukondalu Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. 

Statement is marked as Ex.P106.

PW.31/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A1 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.21 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Yedukondalu wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P110.

6). G.S.L.No.2: Nobody is examined 7). G.S.L.No.5: Nobody is examined 8). G.S.L.No.7: Nobody is examined 9). G.S.L.No.11: Nobody is examined 10). G.S.L.No.14:

PW.203/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Gutta Satya narayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P332.

Nowkarnama is not examined.

The building owner is not examined.

14 11). G.S.L.No.15: 

PW.204/clerk for stock verification of GSN liquor syndicate deposed that he did not work as a clerk in the office of GSN liquor syndicate and he does not know A1 and his business and also LW.261, 262 & 263. He knows PW.202 Puvvala Nagaraju and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. 

Statement is marked as Ex.P334. 

Nowkarnama is not examined. 

The building owner is not examined.

12). G.S.L.No.29: Nobody is examined 13). G.S.L.No.47: Nobody is examined 14). G.S.L.No.38:

PW.20/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Gutta Satya narayana/A.O.1 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P99.

P.W.26/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A1. He knows the PW.20 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Sri Sai Sankeerthina Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and him and turned hostile and his 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P105.

PW.30/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A1 syndicate and he gave the building on lease to Sri Sai San keerthina Wines by the name Ungarala Sriramulu/PW.20 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Sri Sai Sankeerthina wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P109.

The evidence of the witnesses discussed above for 14 A4 wine shops does not disclose any material proving that all 14 wine shops were being maintained by Accused No.1 as a G.S.N. syndicate before Auction.

13.On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 17 to 21 & 203, they are license holders and all of them deposed that they do not know A1 and they got the license on participation in tender. They further deposed that they do not know 15 whether the syndicate of A1 had 14 shops. They denied the suggestion that they had no source of income to invest and pay off the amounts and they acted as binami of Accused No. 1. Accordingly they denied their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements marked as Ex. P.96 to P.100 & 332. But, in the cross­examination of the defence they claimed that they have sufficient properties they run their liquor shops and they paid amounts on their own accord before tender and after tender.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 17 to 21 does not disclose any material evidence that they acted as binami of Accused No.1 and that they were part of the GSN syndicate belonging to Accused No.1. The evidence of P.W. 28 to 31 being landlords of the shops discussed in GSL shops above, disclose that they were not aware of A1 and his business and also about irregularities of their tenants. The 161 statements of P.W. 28 to 31 were marked as Exs. P. 107 to

110. Hence, no material evidence has been elicited proving the license holders were part of a syndicate of Accused No.1.

14(a).The prosecution examined the Tahsildars P.Ws 178 to 182, 185 to 189 & 206 to prove their financial incapacity of license holders etc. PW. 178 to 182, 185 to 189 & 206 deposed an identifying letter addressed from their office.

As per the evidence of the P.W. 178, Ravuri Srinivasu of Y.V.Lanka, as per

PW.179, B.S.Seetharam of Tanuku, as per PW.180 the PW.58, as per PW.182,

N.Seetharamulu of Gundugolanu, as per PW.185, B.Vijaya Kumar of Eluru

Mandal, as per PW.186, N.Srinivas of Pedarayavaram, as per PW.187 the

PW.20, as per PW.188 the PW.60, as per PW.189, P.Krishnarjuna Rao of

Paddavegi & as per PW.206, G.Srinivasa Rao of Tadikalapudi have no sufficient income and they are the holding BPL cards. He further deposed that P.Ws 178 to 182, 185 to 189 & 206, do not hold landed property and the letters were marked as Exs. P.285 to P.288, P.290, P.295, P.298 to P.301 & P.335. In the 16 cross­ examination, all of them deposed that their respective letters do not disclose the date of enquiry and to whom they enquired. Further, they submitted their letters on the instructions of MROs without requisition of the ACB Office.

(b).PW.130 Deputy Tahsildar deposed about their office letter Ex.P.213 as

T.Janakiramana of Penumuluru has no movable & immovable properties.

PW.131 VRO deposed about their office letter Ex.P.214 as V.Phaneendra Kumar has no movable & immovable properties and K.Moshe has 55 cents, L.Devid has 55 cents, Y.Somayya has 55 cents etc., PW.132 Secretary Municipal

Corporation, Eluru deposed about their office letter Ex.P.215 as about house of

D.Ammaji & A.Nageswara Rao and further deposed, as per letter Ex.P216,

A.Nageswara Rao has no properties. PW.133 Deputy Tahsildar deposed about their office letter Ex.P.217 as M.Satyanarayana, S/o.Dharmayya has ac: 1.92 cents and Subbarao has no land. PW.174 Retired VRO deposed as per his letter

Ex.P.270 as Katam Raju/PW.17 cultivating ac: 8.00 cents on lease and has white ration card. PW.175 VRO deposed about their office letter Ex.P.271 as

D.Umamaheswararao has no properties but has a white ration card and as per

Ex.P272, PW.19 has no properties and ration cards. He further deposed as per letter Ex.P273 P.Nagaraju and as per P274 A.Nageswara Rao have no properties. PW.176 VRO deposed about their office letter Ex.P.275 as

D.Venkata Rao has no properties, as per letter Ex.P276 N.Raju, Gun Bajar,

Eluru has no properties except ration card, as per PW.277 K.Venkateswara Rao has no properties except ration card, as per Ex.P278 P.Ravi of Kothapeta has no properties except white ration card, as per Ex.P279 PW.55 has no properties but his father owns ac:1.00 cents, as per Ex.P280 PW.57 has no properties but his father owns ac:1.00 cents, as per Ex.P281 P.Srinivasa Rao has no properties except white ration card but his wife has ac:2.00 cents 17 of land, as per Ex.P282 B.Ramamohana Rao is having Timber Depot Business and has Pink ration card, and as per Ex.P283 S.Shafi Ullah has no properties except white ration card. PW.134 deposed as per Ex.P219 D.Anjeswara Rao and

A.Nageswear rao have no connection with the Govt. land in Survey No.269 of

Kalarayanagudem and as per Ex.P218 there were belt shop in

Lingayapalligudem. PW.140 deposed that as per letter Ex.P226

K.Veeraraghavararao, Bollam Srinu have no properties and B.Prasad Rao have ac:1.79 cents land in RC.No.253/2 of Nalajarla. And P.Satyanarayana,

Pakalapati Nageswara Rao, P.Srinviasa Rao have no properties. He further deposed that P. Ramesh had ac:1.00 cents, M.Veeraju had ac:1.73 cents and

B.Apparao had no properties. As per the letter Ex.P225, there were belt shops in Nalajarla Mandal. PW.143 deposed that as per letter Ex.P230 there were no belt shops and as per letter/Ex.P231 details of Gangadhar and others were not available.

In the cross­examination, all the above witnesses categorically deposed that they had not received any communication from ACB and further the letters do not disclose any details of the enquiry, i.e., date of enquiry who were enquiry and relevant documents and they were not aware whether the individuals had business and income. They denied the suggestion that letters were issued without proper enquiry. 

They further deposed that there is no rule in the revenue department that white ration card holders shall not do any other profession or business.

On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 178 to 182, 185 to 189 & 206, PW.130 to 133, PW.174 to 176, 178 to 182, 185 to 189, 203, 204 & 206 / VROs,

Deputy Tahsildars etc., in chief and cross­examination, it is clear that there is no rule prohibiting white ration card holders from participating in the auction.

18

The licensed holders already examined are categorically deposed as they are not related to Accused No. 1 and they individually maintained their shops and paid instalments to the Government. Given the evidence of license holders, I am of the view that the evidence of the above witnesses does not propose any material evidence to prove that all the license holders acted in a tender on behalf of

Accused No.1 and were part of a syndicate of A1.

15. P.W. 229 & 230 are Bank Managers. The Manager/ P.W229 deposed that G.Satyanarayana was a common guarantee to all guarantors as per letter

Ex.P361. In cross­examination, he deposed that has no personal knowledge

Ex.P361. He admitted that one can stand as surety to any number of people. P.W. 95 deposed that his predecessor gave Account details of Byreddy

Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Venkata Ramana, Chinta Raja Rao, S/o.Basavaiah,

T.Janaki Ramana, S/o.Kasivisweswara Rao, I.Katam Raju, S/o.Unaiah,

K.Venkateswara Rao, S/o.,Venkata Swamy, D.Uma Maheswara Rao,

S/o.Venkanna, D.Anji Babu, S/o.Uma Maheswara Rao, P.Nagaraju, S?

o.Sambasiva Rao, P.Ravi, S/o.Lingaraju, G.Siva Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkata

Ramaiah, Ch.Srimannarayana, S/o.Suryanaraya, U.Sriramulu,

S/o.Nageswara Rao, A.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Babji, M.Srinivas, S/o.Venkata

Subba Rao. His evidence­in­chief does not disclose any about the amount lying in their respective accounts. 

In cross­examination, he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the accounts of license holders etc., and nobody deposed about alleged binami activities in support of A1. Accordingly, nothing is elicited against the

A.O. 1 about the syndicate. Though some of the witnesses deposed about A1 stood as guarantees to others, there is no material to prove that all the license holders acted as binami of Accused No.1.

19 16(a).The prosecution examined P.W. 221 Project Director A.P., Housing deposed that, as per Ex.P351 Dasari Krisha Mohan, B.V.Shankar Gangadhar

Rao & M.Srinivasa Rao were not covered under the housing scheme. He further deposed that U.Sriramulu/PW.20 is covered under the Indiramma housing scheme. In cross­examination, he deposed that he does not know whether beneficiary/PW.20 under housing schemes are doing any other business.

Though P.W. 221 was deposed about obtaining houses under Government

Schemes by one person, the prosecution failed to produce any proof the beneficiary was not eligible for getting a shop. However, I already discussed that none of the evidence of witnesses related to GSL shops does disclose any material that their shops are binami shops of Accused No. 1.

(b).PW.207 to 215/Employee of Income Tax Department of Eluru,

Amalapuram, Palakolu, Bhimavaram, Rajamahendravaram, Tadapalligudem,

Tanuku, Kakinada & Guntur deposed about license Holders and others about submission of income tax return and failure to submit the Income tax returns.

In the cross­examination, they deposed that they have no personal knowledge about the letters i.e., Ex.P336 to 345 and admitted that there are no disputes with regard to the contents of respective income tax returns filed by license holders. However, the evidence in chief and cross­examination of the above witnesses do not show anything about the syndicate. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses is in no way helpful to the prosecution case.

(c). The prosecution examined P.W. 10 to 12 /IML Depot Managers and

Store Officers. PW.10 deposed that he was not aware of persons maintaining more than one workshop particularly Accused No.1. After he took charge, A1 never came to him and informed him about the shop. As he turned hostile and 20 did not support the prosecution case, his 161 Cr. P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P18. In cross­examination, he deposed that stock is generally released to the license holder or Nowkarnama as per the instructions of the Job chart and he followed instructions only further he was not the officer wested with statutory power under Excise laws relating to the tender process, issuance of license and governing shops. Similarly, PW.11 and 12 deposed that they were not aware of syndicate shops including A1 and they turned hostile. Their 161

Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Ex.P90 and 91. 

In view of the evidence of Mediators PW.1 & 2 and other witnesses,

Investigating Officers PW.184, 196 & 240 about searches regarding liquor syndicate at GSN liquor syndicate at the residence of A1 and Excise

Superintendent office Eluru and nowkarnamas Pws.22 to 27, landlords PWs.28 to 31, neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.43, 32 to 34, 35, Tahsildars and

VROs PWs.130 to 134, 140, 143, 174 to 176, 178 to 189 & 206, Bank

Managers PW.129 & 130 and Income Tax Officer PW.207 to 215 and Project

Director APHCL, Kakinada/PW.221, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 formed a GSN liquor syndicate with the assistance of 14 wine shop licensees at Eluru and Accused No.5/Excise Inspector.

17. POINT No. I(B)

Whether A1's liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.5/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise

Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.1 and A5 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and 21

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses)

Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that "14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8)

(9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more than one 

shop. In the event of a person being a successful auction 

purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by him in respect 

of any other shop/shops shall automatically become invalid".

Regarding Sec.14(9) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and A.P. Excise Rules 2005, the prosecution examined District Prohibition & Excise Officers/PW.222 &

PW.223. The evidence of PW.22 shows that they furnished information to letter

Ex.P352 about Accused No.5 to 7 and the details of Nowkarnamas of A4 shops for the lease period 2010­2012. PW.223 deposed about service particulars of

J.Prasad, Srirangam, Srihari and Sukesh through letter Ex.P353. In cross­ examination, PW.223 deposed that the letter/Ex.P353 do not relate to the present accused. PW.220/Senior Assistant of Excise department Eluru also deposed about Ramanamurthy, Raghuma Reddy, Ramana and Prabakar working as SHOs Excise Stations and the information was submitted through letter Ex.P350. In cross­examination, he deposed that he did not know who these persons were related to the present case. 

PW.240/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs, VROs etc. regarding violations of Excise Act and Excise

Rules. 

On perusal of the evidence of MROs PWs. 136, 146, 147, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 & 162 show about running of belt shops but do not disclose any material by whom the belt shops were being run and particularly there is no 22 material that A1 is responsible for and A.5 conspired with them. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.1 held more than one shop and he submitted false depositions further he was doing binami transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, sold the liquor over and above MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 14 GSN shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 is the owner of all 14 shops. 

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules, 2005 by A.1 and A.5. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue. 

18. Point No. I (C) 

Whether A.1 paid regular mamools to Accused No.5/Excise Inspector and A.5 being a public servant conspired with A.1 and collected monthly mamools as illegal gratification from the liquor syndicate of A.1 and the prosecution has proved the offence U/Sec. 109 of IPC r/w 13(1) (a) of the

Provision of Corruption Act 1988 against A1 and further proved offence u/sec.13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A5?

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of the right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005, says that 

" Rule 41 Monetary transactions with officers prohibited: Any kind of 

monetary transactions unconnected with the official purpose between 

the licensee and the personnel of the Prohibition & Excise, Police, Revenue Department and the personnel of the APBCL is strictly prohibited". 

The Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988 deals with the misconduct of public servants for accepting, obtaining etc., of bribes under section 13 of the 

Act.

23

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— 1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal miscon duct,—

(a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b)…….

(c)……

(d)…….

2. Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.

As the prosecution alleges that Accused No.1 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.5/Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor shops to ignore the violations of the Excise Laws. Hence, it is necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.5 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the Accused

Officer No.5.

19. PUBLIC SERVANT

Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.5 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Eluru as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of Accused Officer

No.5 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under

Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the employment of the

Accused Officer No.5 is not disputed by the defence. Further, the sanction to prosecute Accused No.5 is not disputed. 

20. As per the prosecution case, as per Ex.P82, Accused Nos.1 has paid bribes to several public servants, on behalf of the alleged GSN Syndicate, 24 including Accused Officer No.5. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribes paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order Police etc., the

Investigating Officer made the Accused Officer No.5 only as an accused since

Accused No.5 is Excise Department employee. During the course of the investigation, Investigating Officer PW.240 examined prosecution witnesses

PW.204, as his writings were available in book Ex.P3 recovered under mediators report Ex.P82. In view of the above circumstances, it is the turn of the prosecution to prove the payments of bribes to Accused Officer No.5.

As per the evidence of PW.6/Mediator and PW.240 /DSP, they held a search in the house of Accused No.1 and Seized the Ex.P3 and further Accused

No.1 stated about the collection of amount to bribe public servants and paying bribes to the Government servants and further his servants/PW.204 maintain the account in Ex.P3/book. On perusal, the Ex.P82 show that bribe amounts were paid through PW.204 to public servants and it further discloses designation officers received amounts. It does not disclose the details of the persons who received the amounts. On perusal, Ex.P3 notebook discloses

Ex.P333/pages no.3 & 4 about payment of the amount to the Law & Order

Police Station and it does not disclose the names of any person. Ex.P333 specifically discloses the designation of Law & Orders Police only and it does not disclose details of Excise Police particularly Accused No.5. At this stage, a perusal of evidence of PW.204 in chief shows that he does not know A1 and his alleged GSN liquor syndicate and LW.261 to 263 & 202. He further deposed that he never worked for the syndicate. Ex.P3 contains his handwriting. He wrote those writings in the notebook on the directions of ACB Officials and he did not pay any mamools to any public servants. He participated in the auction and got liquor shop GSL no.15. He does not know Transporter Raju also. As

PW.204 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, the 25 prosecution cross­examined not nothing is elicited in support of the prosecution. In view of the evidence of PW.204, it is clear that obtaining the handwriting of PW.204 in Ex.P3 is itself suspicious and questionable. 

21. Handwriting expert/PW.235 deposed about the opinion given under report/Ex.P367 stating that the person who wrote read enclosed writing marked as S1 to S48 also wrote read enclosed writings marked Q1 to Q8.

Though PW.235 was deposed in support of the prosecution case, the evidence of PW.204 does not support the prosecution case and the writings available in

Ex.P3 itself have become objectionable. In the authority "Central Bureau of

Investigation vs V.C. Shula and others. AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1406", the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed the admissibility of daily entries and

held as follows:

"In Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal [ A. I. R 1925 Nagpur 445] it was observed that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in the absence of such evidence, no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal Vs. Ram Rakha [ A. I. R. 1953 Pepsu 113] the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been proving, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not, therefore, enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts.

The evidentiary value of entries relevant under Section 34 was also considered in Hiralal Mahabir Pershad (supra ) I.D. Dua, ]. (as he then was ) speaking for the Court observed that such entries though relevant were only corroborative evidence and it is to be shown 26 further by some independent evidence that the entries represent

honest and real transactions and that monies were paid in

accordance with those entries.

A conspectus of the above decisions makes it evident that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. Keeping in view the above principles, even if we proceed on the assumption that the entries made in MR 71/91 are correct and the entries in the other books and loose sheets which we have already found to be not admissible in evidence under Section 34 are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss, delve into or decide upon the contention raised by Mr. Altaf Ahmed in this regard. Suffice it to say that the statements of the for witnesses, who have admitted receipts of the payments as shown against them in MR 71/91, can at best be proof of reliability of the entries so far they are concerned and not others. In other words, the statements of the above witnesses cannot be independent evidence under Section 34 as against the above two respondents. So far as Shri Advani is concerned Section 34 would not come in aid of the prosecution for another reason also. According to the prosecution case itself his name finds place only in one of the loose sheets (sheet No. 8) and not in MR 71/91. Resultantly, in view of our earlier discussion, section 34 cannot at all be pressed into service against him."

22. Though Mediators P.W. 1 deposed that A.1 held 14 wine shops under

GSN liquor syndicate, and A.1 confessed about payment of mamools to Public

Servants, the confession is hit by Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. 

In view of authority CBI vs V.C. Sukla, the entries on Page No.3 & 4, disclose Law & Order Police Station only and do not disclose Excise Police Station further the same does not disclose to whom the amount was paid and who received the amount. Hence, the entries in Ex. P3 is vague and lacks specificity.

With the discussion about the writings expert report and the evidence of

P.W.204, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove payments of mamools/bribes by A1, on behalf of the GSN syndicate, to Accused No.5/Excise

Inspector. As the prosecution failed to prove about payment of bribes by A1 to 27

A5, the requirement for discussion over the argument of the Special Public prosecutor about the applicability of Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, does not arise. 

With the discussion made in points No. 1 to 3, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused 1 to 4 for the charges U./Sec. 14(9) of

A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC.

23. Point II(A). Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A2 with the assistance of the A4 shop license holder in Narasapuram?

During the course of the trial, PW. 3/Mediator, PW.5/ Mediators,

PW.7/Mediators and PW.197/Inspector and PW.240/ DSP deposed about the search and seizure of files Ex.P55 to P69 in the office of Excise Superintendent

Prohibition & Excise Bhimavaram under Ex.P71, search in IMP depot Chagallu under Ex.P78 and search in the house of Accused No.2 under Ex.P85 about

Janapriya Liquor Syndicate of A2 Palakolu.

The evidence of PW.3/Mediator and the evidence of PW.197/Inspector deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C.

in the office of Excise Superintendent on 05.03.2012 and they seized Ex.P55 to

P69 files under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P71. On perusal, Ex.P71 show consistency. 

The evidence of PW.5/Mediator and the evidence of PW.240/DSP deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C.

28 in the office of Depot Manager, APBCL, IMP Depot, Chagallu on 23.04.2012 under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P78 and recorded his statement. On perusal, Ex.P78 show consistent.

The evidence of PW.7/Mediator and the evidence of PW.240/DSP deposed about holding search on service of search proceeding Sec. 165 Cr.P.C.

in the house of Accused No.2 on 08.06.2012 under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P85 and recorded his confession statement. On perusal Ex. P85,

Accused No.2 confessed about payment details of mamools paid on behalf of A4 wine shops to Law and Order Police and Excise Police etc., It further shows that

ACB Police held a search on service of Sec. 165 Cr.P.C. search proceedings. 

 24. In para No.11, I discussed about search and seizure and provision

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. mandates the Investigating Officer to search a closed house with a search warrant and with the help of local inhabitants. But, in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure laid down U/sec.93 & 100 Cr. PC. Hence, the alleged search and seizure of documents i.e. Ex.P55 to P.69 under mediators report/Ex.P71, search under mediators report/Ex.P78 and search in the house of Accused

No.2 under Ex.P85 are contrary to the provision Sec.100 Cr.P.C. and can not be relied on.

25. To prove that the Janapriya liquor syndicate run by Accused No.2 for 14

A4 wine shops, the prosecution examined license holders, Nokarnamas, the

Manager and landlord of wine shops. None of the witnesses supported about liquor syndicate being run by A2. Brief evidence of respective A4 licensed shops is produced as follows:

29 1). G.S.L.No.374: Nobody is examined 2). G.S.L.No.378:

PW.36/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in July 2010 and he did not know about Guduri Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P115.

P.W.42/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A2. He knows the PW.36 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Janapriya Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P121.

PW.46/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A2 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.36 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Janapriya wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P125.

3). G.S.L.No.379: 

PW.37/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Guduri

Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P116.

LW.63/Nowkarnama is not examined. 

The building owner is not examined.

4). G.S.L.No.381: Nobody is examined 5). G.S.L.No.382: Nobody is examined 6). G.S.L.No.383: 

PW.38/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Guduri Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P117.

LW.64/Nowkarnama is not examined. 

30

The building owner is not examined.

7). G.S.L.No.384:

LW.56/License Holder is not examined

LW.65/Nowkarnama is not examined 

PW.47/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A2 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to LW.56 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Srinivasa wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P126.

8). G.S.L.No.388:

PW.39/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Guduri

Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement is marked as Ex.P118.

P.W.44/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A2. He knows the LW.57 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Sri Durga Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P123.

The building owner is not examined.

9). G.S.L.No.394:

LW.58/License Holder is not examined. 

P.W.45/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A2. He knows the LW.58 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Muthayalamma Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P124.

PW.48/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A2 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to LW.58 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Muthayalamma wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P127.

31 10). G.S.L.No.399:

PW.40/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Guduri Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P119.

L.W.68/Nowkarnama is not examined.

LW.74/Building owner is not examined.

11). G.S.L.No.400: 

PW.41/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Guduri Hanu mantharao/A.O.2 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P120.

P.W.51/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A2. He knows the PW.41 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Balaji Wines and he worked as 

Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P130.

PW.49/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A2 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.41 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Balaji wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P128.

12. G.S.L.No.346: Nobody is examined 13). G.S.L.No.350:

LW.53/License Holder is not examined.

P.W.43/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A2. He knows the LW.53 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Harshatha Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P122.

The building owner is not examined.

32 14). G.S.L.No.351: Nobody is examined.

The evidence of the witnesses discussed above for 14 A4 wine shops does not disclose any material proving that all 14 wine shops were being maintained by Accused No.2 as a Janapriya syndicate at any time even before the Auction.

On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 36 to 41 & 53, they are license holders and all of them deposed that they do not know A2 and that they got the license on their participation in the tender. They further deposed that they do not know whether the syndicate of A2 had 14 shops. They denied the suggestion that they had no source of income to invest and pay off the amounts and they acted as binami of Accused No. 2. Accordingly they denied their 161

Cr.P.C. statements marked as Ex. P.115 to P.120 & 132. But, in the cross­ examination of the defence they claimed that they have sufficient properties they run their liquor shops and they paid amounts on their own accord before tender and after tender. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 36 to 41 & 53 does not disclose any material evidence that they acted as binami of Accused No.2 and that they were part of the Janapriya syndicate belongs to Accused No.2.

The evidence of P.W. 46 to 49 being landlords of the shops discussed in GSL shops above, disclose that they were not aware of A2 and his business and also about irregularities of their tenants. The 161 statements of P.W. 46 to 49 were marked as Exs. P. 125 to 128. Hence, no material evidence has been elicited proving the license holders were part of a syndicate of Accused No.2.

26(a).The prosecution examined the Tahsildars P.Ws 142, 177, 194, 196, 198, 199 & 200 to prove their financial incapacity of license holders etc. and marked the correspondence in their office in Ex.P229, P284, P313, P316, P317,

P318, P319, P320, P321, P322. P323, P324, P325, P326 and P327 about 33 license holders by name B.V.S.Gangadhar, A.Balaji, R.Satyanarayana,

T.Ramakrishna, PW.36, PW.37, Accused No.2, PW.38, LW.56, Y.Ramesh,

T.V.V.Satyanarayana, T.Seetharamanjaneyulu, C.Balaji and LW.58 and most of the license holders were are white ration card and they were getting less income. In the cross­examination, all of them deposed that their respective letters do not disclose the date of enquiry and to whom they enquired. Further, they submitted their letters on the instructions of MROs without requisition of the ACB Office and further, they do not know whether the individuals own lands and houses in other villages.

(b). IMP Depot Manager, Chagallu/PW.13 deposed as he was not aware of the persons maintaining more than one shop. As he has not supported the prosecution case he was cross­examined by Public Prosecutor and he denied the contents of 161 Cr. P.C Statement marked as Ex.P92. In cross­examination, he deposed that he released the stock to the license holder or Nowkarnama as per the Job chart and he followed instructions. He was not vested with the powers under Excise Laws relating to the tender process, issue of licenses and governing shops. Accordingly, nothing is elicited about the existence of a syndicate by Accused No.2.

On perusal of the evidence PW.142, 177, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200,

PW.13/ VROs, Deputy Tahsildars etc., in chief and cross­examination, I am of the view that the evidence of above witnesses do not propose any material evidence to prove that all the license holders acted in a tender on behalf of

Accused No.2 and were part of a syndicate of A2 and further they have no financial capacity.

27(a). P.W. 231 & 232 are Bank Managers. The Manager / P.W231 deposed that his predecessor issued letter Ex.P363 and furnished the bank 34 details of 14 license holders. The Manager / P.W232 deposed that his predecessor issued letter Ex.P364 and furnished the bank details of 14 license holders. In cross­examination, both of them deposed that they have personal knowledge and one can stand as surety/security for any number of persons.

On perusal, both the Ex.P363 & P364 do not disclose that Accused No.2 acted as made transactions on behalf of license holders. Further, the license holders examined in this case already deposed that they were not aware of A.2 and they were not connected to A2 business. Accordingly, nothing is elicited against the

A.O. 2 about the syndicate and there is no material to prove that all the license holders acted as binami of Accused No.2.

27(b).In para 16(B), I discussed about the evidence of Income Tax employees PW.207 to 215 and concluded that there is no material about the syndicate alleged maintained by Accused No.2. Further, PW.226 Nodal Officer of Vodaphone Idea Limited deposed as call data record of Mobile

No.9010237773 & 9849644766 for the period 01.07.2010 to 31.01.2012 was not available and they provided call data recorded of No.9010237773 & 9849644766 for the period 01.02.2012 to 30.06.2012 under the same was submitted under Ex.P356. In cross­examination, he deposed that he was not aware of what kind of business the subscribers were doing. Though PW.226 deposed about the call data record of two numbers, the same does not prove about business transactions of the syndicate allegedly maintained by A.2 with others. Hence the said evidence of PW.226 is not material.

In view of the evidence of Mediators PW.3, 5 & 7 and other witnesses,

Investigating Officers PW.197 & 240 about searches regarding liquor syndicate at Excise Superintendent office Bhimavaram, IML Depot Chagallu and the residence of A2 and nowkarnamas Pws.42, 44, 45 & 51, landlords PWs.46 to 49, neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.43, 50, 52, 53, 54, Tahsildars and 35

VROs PWs.142, 177, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, IML Depot Manager/PW.13

Bank Managers PW.232 & 233 and Income Tax Officer PW.207 to 215 and

Nodal Officer/PW.226, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.2 formed the Janapriya liquor syndicate with the assistance of 14 wine shop licensees at Palakolu and Accused No.6/Excise Inspector.

28 Point II (B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­operation of A.6/Excise SHO and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.2 and 6 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP

Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and

Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that 

"14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8) (9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more than one shop. In the event of a person being a successful auction purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by him in respect of any other shop/ shops 

shall automatically become invalid".

PW.240/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs, VROs etc. regarding violations of Excise Act and Excise Rules.

PW.150 to PW.155, PW.163 to PW.173 being Revenue Officials deposed identifying the signatures of their predecessors under letters Ex.P.242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 about availability/non­availability belt shop in their respective jurisdictions.In the cross­examination, all the above witnesses 36 categorically deposed that the information was submitted on the enquiry reports of VRO concerned Tahildar has not done any independent enquiry and further, no complaints were received from the public about the existence of belt shops. Accordingly, the evidence of about witnesses does not disclose that the belt shops were allegedly maintained by Accused No.2. 

On perusal, the evidence of MROs etc., PW.150 to PW.155, PW.163 to

PW.173 show about running of belt shops but do not disclose any material by whom the belt shops were being run and particularly there is no material that

A2 is responsible for and A.6 conspired with them. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.2 held more than one shop and he submitted false depositions further he was doing binami transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, sold the liquor over and above MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 14 shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.2 is the owner of all 14 shops. 

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules 2005 by A.2 and A.6. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue. 

29. Point No. II (c)  A2 got paid mamools to Accused No.6/Excise SHO and other officials so as to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A6?

In the para 18 I produced Rule 41 of Excise Rules 2005 and Sec.13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As the prosecution alleges that 37

Accused No.2 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.6/

Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor shops to ignore the violations of the Excise

Laws. Hence, it is necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.6 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer No.6.

30. PUBLIC SERVANT

SECTION 2(C) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT:

Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.6 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Narasapuram as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of

Accused Officer No.6 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the employment of the Accused Officer No.6 is not disputed by the defence.

Further, the sanction to prosecute Accused No.6 is not disputed. 

31. As per the prosecution case, under Ex.P85, Accused Nos.2 has paid bribes to several public servants, on behalf of the alleged Janapriya Syndicate, including Excise Officials. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribes paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order Police etc., the Investigating

Officer made the Accused Officer No.6 only as an accused since Accused No.6 is an Excise Department employee. During the course of the investigation, no material has been collected about payment of bribes to Public Servants including Accused No.6. On perusal, the Ex.P85 show that bribe amounts were paid to public servants. It does not disclose the details of the persons who received the amounts. Accordingly, except for the confession of Accused No.2 under Ex.P85, there is no other material in support of the confession of 38

Accused No.2. Further, the alleged confession of Accused No.2 does not disclose the details of Accused No.6 and the details of amounts allegedly pay.

With the discussion about evidence of investigation office PW.240, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove payments of mamools/bribes by A2, on behalf of Janapriya Syndicate, to Accused No.6/Excise Inspector. As the prosecution failed to prove about payment of bribes by A2 to A6, the requirement for discussion over the argument of the Special Public Prosecutor about the applicability of Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, does not arise. 

With this discussion I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge U/Sec.13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2 and A6. 

Point 

32. III (A)

Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of A3 with the assistance of A4 shops license holder in Bhimadole?

As per the prosecution case, investigating Officer PW.240 examined license holders, Building Owners, neighbours and Nowkarnama Holders and recorded their statements to prove the syndicate allegedly maintained by

Accused No.3. He further examined VROs to prove the financial status of

License holders as binamis. Further, he secured information from Bank

Managers about the account details of binamis and other licenses. The witnesses i.e., the Manager staff of APBCL, Eluru & Chagallu, and another witness/Transporter stated that the drawing of the stock by the transporter for all 36 liquor shops of the liquor syndicate belongs to A3. The call details furnished by Telecom Agency also show transactions between A3 and other 39

Police Officials, Nowkarnamas etc., Further, the information secured from

Revenue Officials shows about running of 1349 belt shops in the Excise Station limits by Accused No.3 with the collusion of the other Public Servants including

Accused No.7.

33. In this case against Accused No.3, no searches and seizures of any documents/Material were taken place. 

To prove that the Janapriya liquor syndicate run by Accused No.2 for 14

A4 wine shops, the prosecution examined license holders, Nokarnamas, the

Manager and landlord of wine shops. None of the witnesses supported about liquor syndicate being run by A2. Brief evidence of respective A4 licensed shops is produced as follows:

1). G.S.L.No.24:

PW.55/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P134.

P.W.73/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.55 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P152.

PW.93/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.55 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P172.

2). G.S.L.No.40:

LW.88/License Holder is not examined 40

P.W.74/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the LW.88 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P153.

PW.94/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to LW.88 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P173.

3). G.S.L.No.41: 

PW.56/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P135.

P.W.75/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.56 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P154.

PW.95/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.56 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P174.

4). G.S.L.No.44:

PW.57/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P136.

P.W.76/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.57 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked 41 as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P155.

PW.96/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.57 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P175.

5). G.S.L.No.63: 

PW.58/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P137.

P.W.77/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.58 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P156.

PW.97/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.58 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P176.

6). G.S.L.No.64: 

LW.179/License Holder is not examined. 

P.W.78/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the LW.179 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P157.

LW.138/Building owner is not examined.

7). G.S.L.No.71: Nobody is examined 8). G.S.L.No.83: Nobody is examined 9). G.S.L.No.84: Nobody is examined  42 10). G.S.L.No.86: Nobody is examined 11). G.S.L.No.87:

PW.107/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P186.

P.W.79/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.107 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P158.

PW.98/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.107 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P177.

12). G.S.L.No.88:

PW.59/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P138.

P.W.80/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.59 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P159.

PW.99/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.59 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P178.

13). G.S.L.No.89:

43

PW.60/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P139.

L.W.117/Nowkarnama is not examined.

PW.100/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.60 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P179.

14). G.S.L.No.92: Nobody is examined.

15). G.S.L.No.94: Nobody is examined.

16). G.S.L.No.95: Nobody is examined.

17). G.S.L.No.96:

PW.61/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P140.

P.W.81/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.61 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P160.

PW.101/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.61 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P180.

18). G.S.L.No.97:

LW.96/License Holder is not examined 44

P.W.82/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the LW.96 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P161.

PW.102/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to LW.96 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P181.

19). G.S.L.No.98:

PW.62/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P141.

L.W.120/Nowkarnama is not examined.

PW.103/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.62 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P182.

20). G.S.L.No.99:

PW.63/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P142.

P.W.83/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.63 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P162.

PW.104/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.63 45 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P183.

21). G.S.L.No.100:

PW.64/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P143.

P.W.84/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.64 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P163.

The building owner is not examined.

22). G.S.L.No.101: 

PW.65/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P144.

LW.65/Nowkarnama is not examined. 

PW.105/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.65 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P184.

23). G.S.L.No.102: Nobody is examined.

24). G.S.L.No.103:

PW.66/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P145.

46

P.W.85/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.66 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P164.

PW.106/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.66 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P185.

25). G.S.L.No.104:

PW.67/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P146.

P.W.86/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.67 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P165.

LW.148/Building owner is not examined.

26). G.S.L.No.105:

License Holder is not examined.

P.W.87/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the LW.179 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P166.

The building owner is not examined.

27). G.S.L.No.106: 

PW.68/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka 47

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P147.

P.W.88/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.68 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P167.

PW.108/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.68 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P187.

28). G.S.L.No.107:

PW.69/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P148.

P.W.89/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.69 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P168.

PW.109/Building owner examined deposed that he did not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.69 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P188.

29). G.S.L.No.212: Nobody is examined.

30). G.S.L.No.213:

PW.70/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka 48

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P149.

L.W.129/Nowkarnama is not examined.

LW.152/Building owner is not examined.

31). G.S.L.No.214: Nobody is examined.

32). G.S.L.No.215:

PW.71/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P150.

P.W.90/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.71 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P169.

LW.153/Building owner is not examined.

33). G.S.L.No.216:

PW.72/License Holder deposed that he participated in the auction for liquor shops in June 2010 and he did not know about Banka

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad/A.O.3 and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P151.

P.W.91/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the PW.72 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P170.

49

PW.110/Building owner examined deposed that he does not know about the A3 syndicate and he did not give any shop on lease to PW.72 for running a liquor shop under the name and style of Dwaraka wines and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P189.

34). G.S.L.No.217: Nobody is examined.

35). G.S.L.No.218: Nobody is examined. 

36). G.S.L.No.468:

LW.108/License Holder is not examined.

P.W.92/Nowkarnama deposed that he does not know A3. He knows the LW.108 he is the owner of Liquor Shop Dwaraka Wines and he worked as Nowkaranama and turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. State ment is marked as Ex.P171. 

LW.155/Building owner is not examined.

The evidence of the witnesses discussed above for 36 A4 wine shops does not disclose any material proving that all 36 wine shops were being maintained by Accused No.3 as a Dwaraka syndicate at any time even before the Auction. 

On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.55 to 72, they are license holders and all of them deposed that they do not know A3 and that they got the license on their participation in the tender. They further deposed that they do not know whether the syndicate of A3 had 36 shops. They denied the suggestion that they had no source of income to invest and pay off the amounts and they acted as binami of Accused No. 3. Accordingly they denied their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements marked as Ex. P.134 to 151. But, in the cross­examination of the defence, they claimed that they have sufficient properties they run their liquor shops and they paid amounts on their own accord before tender and after 50 tender. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 55 to 72 does not disclose any material evidence that they acted as binami of Accused No.3 and that they were part of the Dwaraka syndicate belonging to Accused No.3. The evidence of P.W.

93 to 110 being landlords of the shops discussed in shops above, disclose that they were not aware of A3 and his business and also about irregularities of their tenants. The 161 statements of P.W. 93 to 110 were marked as Exs. P.

172 to 189. Hence, no material evidence has been elicited proving the license holders were part of a syndicate of Accused No.3.

34(a).The prosecution examined the Tahsildars. P.Ws. 143 deposed about the addressing letter under Ex.P239 by his predecessor that B.Sambasiva Rao had no property. P.Ws. 183 deposed about the addressing letter under Ex.P291 by his predecessor that PW.63, under Ex.P292 about P.Srinivasa Rao under

Ex.P293, about PW.69, and under Ex.294, about PW.59 that all of them had white ration card and also had immovable property i.e., house/agriculture land.

P.Ws. 129 deposed about the addressing letter under Ex.P210 about Chantha

Raja had ac:8.66 cents and D.Uma Maheswara Rao, C.Seemannarayana,

M.Srinivasa Rao, A.Nageswara Rao had no landed property and under Ex.P211, the properties of K.S.Dasu, K.Jaya Shekar, P.Satyanarayana, P.Srinivasa Rao,

Sk. Shafi Ullah, P. Kishore, B.S.Vara Prasad, B.Rama Mohanarao, and

D.S.Vara Prasad were not traced. As per the evidence of PW.128, under

Ex.P208/letter the property details of persons were verified and given report.

PW.138, 179 to 182, 185 to 192, 195, 201, 202, being Revenue Officials deposed about addressing letters Ex.P223, 286 to 290, 295 to 307, 314, 315, 328, 329 stating that the license holder was having white ration card with less income. In the cross­examination, all of them deposed that their respective letters do not disclose the date of enquiry and to whom they enquired.

Further, they submitted their letters on the instructions of MROs without 51 requisition of the ACB Office and further, they do not know whether the individuals own lands and houses in other villages. 

(b). IMP Depot Manager, Chagallu/PW.14 & 15 deposed as they were not aware of the persons maintaining more than one shop. As they did not support the prosecution case they were cross­examined by the Public Prosecutor and they denied the contents of 161 Cr. P.C Statements marked as Ex.P93 & P94 respectively. In cross­examination, they deposed that they released the stock to the license holder or Nowkarnama as per the Job chart and they followed instructions. They were not vested with the powers under Excise Laws relating to the tender process, issue of licenses and governing shops. Accordingly, nothing is elicited about the existence of a syndicate by Accused No.3.

On perusal of the evidence PW.148, 183, 193, 129, 128, 138, 179 to 182, 185 to 192, 195, 201 & 202/ VROs, Deputy Tahsildars, PW.14 & 15 etc., in chief and cross­examination, I am of the view that the evidence of above witnesses do not propose any material evidence to prove that all the license holders acted in a tender on behalf of Accused No.3 and were part of a syndicate of A3 and further they have no financial capacity.

35(a). P.W. 233 is the Bank Manager. The Manager / P.W233 deposed that his predecessor issued letter Ex.P365 and furnished the bank details of 35 license holders. In cross­examination, both of them deposed that he has no personal knowledge and one can stand as surety/security for any number of persons. On perusal, the Ex.P365 do not disclose that Accused No.3 acted and made transactions on behalf of license holders. Further, the license holders examined in this case already deposed that they were not aware of A.3 and they were not connected to A3 business. Accordingly, nothing is elicited against the 52

A.O. 3 about the syndicate and there is no material to prove that all the license holders acted as binami of Accused No.3.

35(b). In para 16(b), I discussed the evidence of Income Tax employees

PW.207 to 215 and concluded that there is no material about the syndicate alleged maintained by Accused No.3. Further, PW.227 Nodal Officer of Reliance

Communication, deposed about as call data record of Mobile No.9393644766 belongs to Vanitha Karicharla, was submitted under Ex.P357. In cross­ examination, he deposed that he was not aware of what kind of business the subscribers were doing. Though PW.227 deposed about the call data record of

Vanitha Karicharla, how the same is connected to a present case pending against Accused No.3. Hence the said evidence of PW.227 is not material.

In view of the evidence Investigating Officers PW. 240 and nowkarnamas Pws.73 to 92, landlords PWs.93 to 106, 108 to 110 & 125 neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.111 to 123, 124 & 126, Tahsildars and

VROs PWs.127 to 196, 198 to 202 & 206 and Income Tax Officer PW.207 to 215 and Nodal Officer/PW.227, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.3 formed the Dwaraka liquor syndicate with the assistance of 36 wine shop licensees at Eluru and Accused No.7/Excise Inspector.

36. Point III (B) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co­ operation of A7/Excise SHO and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and 53 the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.3 and 7 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise

Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of

Indian Penal Code?

Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that "14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8)

(9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more

than one shop. In the event of a person being a successful

auction purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by

him in respect of any other shop/shops shall

automatically become invalid".

37. PW.240/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs, VROs etc. regarding violations of Excise Act and Excise

Rules. 

PW.127, 134, 137, 140, 141, 143, 149 being Revenue Officials deposed identifying the signatures/of their predecessors under letters Ex.P.206, 207, 218, 219, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 240 & 241 about availability/non­availability belt shops in their respective jurisdictions. 

In the cross­examination, all the above witnesses categorically deposed that the information was submitted on the enquiry reports of VRO concerned and Tahsildars have not done any independent enquiry and further no complaints were received from the public about the existence of belt shops.

Accordingly, the evidence of about witnesses does not disclose that the belt shops were allegedly maintained by Accused No.3. Hence there is no material that A3 is responsible for and A.7 conspired with him. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.3 held more than one shop and he 54 submitted false depositions further he was doing binami transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, sold the liquor over and above MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 36 shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.3 is the owner of all 36 shops. 

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules 2005 by A.3 and A.7. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue. 

38 Point III (C) A3 got paid mamools to Accused No.7/Excise SHO and other officials so as to facilitate the function of liquor business violating the provisions of Excise Laws and the prosecution has proved the offences U/sec.109 of IPC r/w 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A3 and Section 13(1)

(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A7?

In the para 18,I produced Rule 41 of Excise Rules 2005 and Sec.13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As the prosecution alleges that

Accused No.3 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.7/

Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor shops to ignore the violations of the Excise

Laws. Hence, it is necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.7 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer No.7.

39 SECTION 2(C) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT:

55

Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.7 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Bhimadolu as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of

Accused Officer No.7 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the employment of the Accused Officer No.7 is not disputed by the defence.

Further, the sanction to prosecute Accused No.7 is not disputed. 

40. In the instant case, there is no confession of any person about mamools were paid to the Public Servants, particularly against Excise Official including

Accused No.7. Further, there is no search and seizure of any record to that effect. Except for the Investigating Officer PW.240 etc., all the witnesses examined under point No.III(A) & III(B) have not deposed anything against maintaining syndicate by Accused No.3 and further A7 allegedly received mamools from Accused No.3 cooperating with them to maintain liquor shops of

Dwaraka syndicate violating Excise laws. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribes paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order Police etc., the Investigating Officer made the Accused Officer No.7 only as an accused since Accused No.7 is an Excise Department employee. During the course of the investigation, no material has been collected about the payment of bribes to

Public Servants including Accused No.7. 

With the discussion about evidence of investigation office PW.240, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove payments of mamools/bribes by A3, on behalf of Dwaraka Syndicate, to Accused No.7/Excise Inspector. As the prosecution failed to prove about payment of bribes by A3 to A7, the requirement for discussion over the argument of the Special Public Prosecutor 56 about the applicability of Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, does not arise. 

With this discussion I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge U/Sec.13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w Sec.109 of the Indian Penal Code against the Accused No.3 and A7. 

41. Another interesting point to be discussed is the registration of the FIR. As per the evidence of PWs. 1 and 184, an initial search was made in the office of the liquor syndicate of A1 at Eluru on 16.12.2011 under the cover of Mediator

Report / Ex.P1. Similarly, searches were held against A2 and secured information about the commission of the offence and further secured information against A3. Accordingly, there were three independent offences allegedly committed in various places i.e., Eluru, Palakolu and Bhimadole.

Based on three independent offences, the ACB Police prepared an occurrence report and obtained permission from D.G., ACB and then registered FIR. As all three offences are independent of each other, the ACB Police is bound to register three independent crimes and investigate the cases. But the ACB

Police, Eluru clubbed all three independent offences and registered one crime number and investigated the case and accordingly, the actions of the

Investigating Officer registering one crime number for three independent offences is contrary to law. 

42. With the discussion made in points No. I (A)(B)(C), II (A)(B)(C), III (A)(B)(C) against Accused No.1 to 3 & 5 to 7, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 for the charges U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P

Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and 57

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC.

43. In the result, the Accused 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A3 & A5 to A7 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 01st day of April 2024.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1: Mukku Babu Rao, Agricultural Officer P.W.2: Rayavarapu Srinivasa Rao, Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Kurnool. P.W.3:Mummineni Gangadhar, Assist. Engineer, Quality control Sub­ Division, R&B, Vijayawada. P.W.4:Kancherlapalli Ramesh Kumar, Deputy Tahsildar, Eluru P.W.5:Kokkiripati Ajay Babu, Deputy Tahasildar, Kovvur P.W.6:Yenugu Purna Chandra Prasad, Deputy Tahasildar, Nidamarru in the now working at Coordination section, Collectorate, Eluru P.W.7:Chinta Durga Kumar, Associate professor, Community medicine, Government . Medical college, Eluru P.W.8:Tatina Subba Rao, Assist. Commissioner, State Tax Department P.W.9:Muthavarapu Krishna Chaitanya, Sr. Assistant, ERO, Ibrahimpatnam P.W.10:Uppala Venugopala Rao, Retired Chief General Manager, APBCL P.W.11:Balusu Madhava Rao, Retired Assistant Manager, APBCL P.W.12:Doppulapudi Amarendra, Retired as a Supervisor P.W.13: Nedunuri Venkata Rama Rao, Incharge Manager, IML Depot, Chagallu. P.W.14:Narra Sivarama Krishaniah, Stores officer, IML depot, Guntur 58

P.W.15:Teki Jawaharlal Nehru, Retired Accounts officer, IML depot, Amalapuram P.W.16:Motamarri Mallikarjuna Rao, Business P.W.17:Inti Katam Raju, Fish tank business P.W.18:Donthamsetty Uma Maheswara Rao, Cloth Business P.W.19:Donthamsetty Anjeswara Rao, Cloth Business P.W.20:Ungarala Sriramulu, Fish Tank Business P.W.21:Modukuri Srinivas, Fish Tank Business P.W.22:Maganti Sitaramadas, Nowkarnama P.W.23:Kammula Someswara Rao, Agriculture P.W.24:Surisetty Janaki Naga Ranga Rao, Nowkarnama P.W.25:Parsa Madhusudhanarao, Panshop P.W.26:Peram Vara Prasad Rao, Nowkarnana P.W.27:Bathula Naga Raju, Nowkarnama P.W.28:Madana Venkateswara Rao, Musician P.W.29:Yampalli Bramhaji, Fish Tank Business P.W.30:Savanampudi Sudhakar, Cultivation P.W.31:Mullapudi Bapineedu, Cultivation P.W.32:Chalamalasetti Venkata Reddiah, Welding Shop P.W.33:Srikakulapu Satish Kumar, Tailoring P.W.34:Pagurla Dhanikonda, Coolie P.W.35:Chanapathi Sarveswara Rao, Prawn Business P.W.36:Nekkanti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Cultivation P.W.37:Tammineedi Naveen Kumar, Contractor P.W.38:Koppineedi Sarveswara Rao, Cultivation and LIC Agent P.W.39:Tammineedi Seetharamanjaneyulu, Cultivation P.W.40:Yanumula Naresh, Finance Business P.W.41:Chilukuri Balaji, Aquaculture P.W.42:Nagireddy Verriyya Naidu, Onion Business P.W.43:Velisetti Babu, Aquaculture P.W.44:Kasukurthi Srinivasa Rao, Cultivation P.W.45:Sunkara Nageswararao, Agriculture P.W.46:Bupathi Suresh Babu, Business P.W.47:Chinimilli Venkata Ratnam, Cultivation P.W.48:Kola Yesu Raju, Cloth Business P.W.49:Ravuri Marraju, Coolie P.W.50:Kolla Satyanarayana, Motorcycle Mechanic P.W.51:Alluri Bramheswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.52:Gummalla Satyanarayana, Cook P.W.53:Padala Srinivas, Cultivation P.W.54:Tammineedi Kishore Kumar, Cultivation P.W.55:Kolusu Jaya Sekhar, Business P.W.56:Nagaboina Sitaram, Fish Tank Business P.W.57:Kolusu Jaya Sridhar, Finance Business P.W.58:Burra Veera Sankara Gangadhar Rao, Cultivation P.W.59:Kuchipudi Kirishna Kishore, Cultivation P.W.60:Eeli Srinivasa Rao, Real Estate Business P.W.61:Erpina Giri Venkata Kumar, Cultivation P.W.62:Banka Apparao, Cultivation P.W.63:Mutina Veerraju, Cultivation P.W.64:Bollam Srinu, Real Estate Business P.W.65:Pathuri Ramesh, Cultivation P.W.66:Pakalapati Nageswararao, Cultivation P.W.67:Pakalapati Satyanarayana, Cultivation P.W.68:Pydi Peddi Raju, Real Estate Business 59

P.W.69:Balusu Prasada Rao, Cultivation P.W.70:Dasari Krishna Mohan, Fruits Business P.W.71:Kasireddi Mariyya, Cultivation P.W.72:Rayapureddy Rajeswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.73:Badarala Venkata Ramana, Hardware Shop Supervisor P.W.74:Parasa Nagaraju, Kirana Shop P.W.75:Naidu Prasad, Clerk in Poultry Farm P.W.76:Konde Swamy Dasu, Teacher P.W.77:Kondeti Lakshmana Rao, Cultivation P.W.78:Dasireddi Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, Cultivation P.W.79:Adapa Durga Rama Prasad, Cultivation P.W.80:Budati Srinivasa Rao, Business P.W.81:Manubolu Raju, Cultivation P.W.82:Kunapareddi Baji Rao, Cultivation P.W.83:Bangaru Narasimha Raju, Finance Business P.W.84:Reddi Venkateswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.85:Garapati Venkata Ramana, Cable Technician P.W.86:Mallipudi Srinivasa Rao, Private Worker P.W.87:Thonta Venkata Sai Subba Rao, Hotel Worker P.W.88:Ampa Subba Rao, Tailoring P.W.89:Guduri Lokeswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.90:Peddinti Venkata Reddy, Cultivation P.W.91:Gutala Simhadri, Clerk in Ice Factory P.W.92:Kimidi Chinna Rao, Clerk in Cloth Shop P.W.93:Karri Gowri Maheswari, Housewife P.W.94:Konakalla Koteswararao, Business P.W.95:Konakalla Venkateswara Rao, Senior Citizen P.W.96:Pasupuleti Rambabu, Cultivation P.W.97:Chinni Veerabhadra Rao, Pan Shop P.W.98:Vagvala Koteswararao, Business P.W.99:Ramisetti Durgamma, Housewife P.W.100:Kamma Rama Rao, Welding Shop P.W.101:Garimella Murali Krishna, Cultivation P.W.102:Veeraganti Venkateswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.103:Bollareddi Bhaskara Reddy, Cultivation P.W.104:Koratani Rambabu, Electrician P.W.105:Pichukala Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Cultivation P.W.106:Vankadara Srirama Chandra Murthy, Business P.W.107:Naraharasetti Venkateswara Rao, Cultivation P.W.108:Soma Subba Rao, Cultivation P.W.109:Shaik Khadar, Mechanic P.W.110:Pedireddi Appala Raju, Business P.W.111:Matta Subba Rao, Business P.W.112:Parasa Naga Siromani, Business P.W.113:Kandula Radha Krishna, Driver P.W.114:Poojari Srinivasa Rao, Business P.W.115:Modugumudi Satyanarayana, Business P.W.116:Velagani Veerraju @Veera Pandu, Business P.W.117:Karuturi Ramesh, Business P.W.118:Peram Mangatayaru, Business P.W.119:Rajulapati Venkateswara Rao, Business P.W.120:Yerroju Jyothi, Tailoring P.W.121:Borra Satyanarayana, Banana Business P.W.122:Dasari Pandu Ranga, Hotel Business P.W.123:Areti Srinivas, Cool Drink Shop 60

P.W.124:Pothala Srinivasa Rao, Business P.W.125:Ganta Ramadevi, Pharmacist P.W.126:Bommidi Srinu, RTC Conductor P.W.127:Akunuri Veni Ratna Priyadarshini, Deputy Tahsildar, Denduluru P.W.128:Mullagiri Sarala Kumari, EOPR, RD, Eluru P.W.129:Jarapala Srinu Naik, Revenue Inspector, Eluru Urban P.W.130:Md.Ibrahim, Deputy Tahsildar, Kalidindi P.W.131:Sapparapu Srinivasa Rao, VRO, Gopavaram P.W.132:Macherla Divya Kumari, Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Eluru P.W.133:Neduri Dorakayya, Deputy Tahsildar, Rangampeta P.W.134:PNV Prasad, Tahsildar, Lingapalem P.W.135:Kantheti Sridevi, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Katrenikona P.W.136:Katta Siva Prasad, Deputy Tahsildar, Mummidivaram P.W.137:Pindi Veera venkat Gopala Krishna, Tahsildar, Chinthalapudi P.W.138:Mandraju Varalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem P.W.139:Nethala Venkata Durga Vara Prasada Babu, Deputy Tahsildar, Pedapadu P.W.140:Vardhanapu Kishore Kumar, Deputy Tahsildar, Nallajerla P.W.141:Kona Udaya Venkata Surya Bhaskara Rao, Deputy Tahsildar, Tanuku P.W.142:Vasireddi Rama Koteswara Rao, Tahsildar, Karapa P.W.143:Shaik Shamshuddin, Deputy Tahsildar, Bhimadole P.W.144:Mortha Surya Prabha, Tahsildar, Pedavegi P.W.145:Ganta Vijaya kumar Babji, Pesticides Business P.W.146:Bandreddi Murali Krishna, Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem P.W.147:Boragam Durga Mahalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Dwarakatirumala P.W.148:Pilli Sunitha, Deputy Tahsildar, Amaravathi P.W.149:Kommuri Srinivas, Tahsildar, Undi I/c Ganapavaram P.W.150:Chevveti Ravi Raju, Deputy Tahsildar, Palcol P.W.151:Rapaka Rajyalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Achanta P.W.152:Digamarthi Rajesh, Deputy Tahsildar, Poduru P.W.153:Vadaparthi Brahmaji, Deputy Tahsildar, Narasapuram P.W.154:Kunaparaju Suryanarayana Raju, Deputy Tahsildar, Mogalthuru P.W.155:Kandulu Baji Satyanarayana, Deputy Tahsildar, Elamanchili P.W.156:Kommupudi Seshagira Rao, Deputy Tahsildar, Kamavarapukota P.W.157:Guggulothu Uday Bhaskar, Deputy Tahsildar, T.Narasapuram P.W.158:Boddepalli Durga Prasad,Deputy Tahsildara, Unguturu P.W.159:Unda Venkateswarlu, Deputy Tahsildar, Pentapadu P.W.160:Shaik Ahamad Farooq, Deputy Tahsildar, Akiveedu P.W.161:Kangala Posubabu, Tahsildar, Nidamarru P.W.162:Konada Lakshmi Kiran, Revenue Inspector, Kalla P.W.163:Lenka Siva Kumar, Tahsildar, Bhimavaram P.W.164:Gangumalla Naresh Kumar, Deputy Tahsildar, Palakoderu P.W.165:Surla Veera Swamy Naidu, Deputy Tahsildar, Undi P.W.166:Juluri Suseela Devi, Tahsildar, Veeravasaram P.W.167:Choppala Syam Prasad, Deputy Tahsildar, Athili P.W.168:Medapati Nagamani, Revenue Inspector, Iragavaram P.W.169:Kurapati Naveen Kumar, Tahsildar, Undrajavaram P.W.170:Pappala Srinivasa Rao, Deputy Tahsildar, Nidadavole P.W.171:Kunche Anand Kumar, Deputy Tahsildar, Chagallu P.W.172:Yeduruvada Venkata Subrahmanyachari, Tahsildar, Devarapalli P.W.173:Kokkiripati Ajay Babu, Deputy Tahsildar, Kovvur P.W.174:Kakula Nageswararao, Retired V.R.O. P.W.175:Shaik Kareemullah, V.R.O. Appanaveedu 61

P.W.176:Kurmani Durga Rao, VRO, Jeelakarragudem P.W.177:Arimilli Venkata Ramana, VRO, Dharbarevu P.W.178:Adapa Narasimha Swamy, Retired VRO P.W.179:Krovvidi Surya Venkata Subbarao, VRO, Mandapaka­I P.W.180:Dadala Bharani Kumar, VRO, Gorripudi P.W.181:Addepalli Siva Kanaka Venkata Apparao, Sr. Assistant, DSO office, Eluru P.W.182:Bogaraju Siva Kumar, Retired V.R.O. P.W.183:Tippabatla. Satyanarayana, Retired V.R.O. P.W.184:V.Subba Raju, DSP. Anakapalle P.W.185:Noolu Jaypal, Retired V.R.O. Appanaveedu P.W.186:Bonagiri Ganapathi, V.R.O. Mukundavaram P.W.187:Vinna Satya Prasad, V.R.O. Ch.Gunnepalli P.W.188:Papolu Naga Jaggarao, Retired V.R.O. Thirumaladevipeta P.W.189:Kommana Indra Vijaya Saradhi, Senior Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Kamavarapukota P.W.190:Duggirala Venkata Gopala Rao, V.R.O. Chakradevarapalli P.W.191:Gandham Markandeyulu, V.R.O. Bhimadole P.W.192:Penugonda Vijaya Lakshmi, V.R.O. Ananthapalli­II P.W.193:Nidamarthi Krishna Murthy, Retired V.R.O. Bandapuram P.W.194:Ramayanam Venkata Padmanabam, V.R.O. Thundurru P.W.195:Manyam Puri Jaganatha Rao, V.R.O, Bhimadole­I P.W.196:Kavvala Narasimha Rao, Retired VRO of Kaligotla Village , Undi Mandal P.W.197:B. Srinivasa Rao, DSP. V.R. P.W.198:Pataballa Venkata Satya Surya Seshagiri Rao, Retired VRO, Rustumbada, Narasapuram Mandal P.W.199:Goteti Hanumantha Rao, Retired VRO, Siragarapalli, Elamanchili Mandal P.W.200:Aampavelli Satyanarayana, VRO, Kapavaram, Palakole Mandal P.W.201:Veeravalli Srinivasa Rao, VRO, Amberpeta­I, Bhimadole Mandal P.W.202:Gorla Venu Gopala Swamy, VRO, Arthamuru village, Bantumilli Mandal P.W.203:Puvvala Naga Raju, Private Employee P.W.204:Puthi Ravi, Business P.W.205:SSV Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Task Force, Vijayawada P.W.206:Tippabatla Venkata Subrahmanyam, Retired V.R.O. Pedavegi P.W.207:Amujuri Siva Narayana Govind, Inspector, Income Tax Office, Eluru P.W.208:Tatikonda Nageswara Rao, Inspector ward­I, Income Tax office, Amalapuram P.W.209:Koppada Gireesha, Inspector, ward­I, Income tax office, Palakole P.W.210:Andukuri Venkata Narasimha Murthy, Inspector, ward­I, Income tax office, Bhimavaram P.W.211:Motha Purna Kumar, Inspector Ward­I, Income Tax office, Rajahmundry P.W.212:Maddu Bala Venkata Subrahmanyam, Inspector of Income Tax, ward­I, Tadepalligudem P.W.213:Inuganti Venkata Surya Prakash, Inspector of Income Tax, ward­I, Tanuku P.W.214:U. Veera Prasad, Inspector, Ward­I, Income tax office, Kakinada P.W.215:R. Kameswari, Inspector, ward­I, Income Tax office, Guntur P.W.216:RVV Satyanarayana, Retired Project Director, AP State Housing corporation limited, Eluru P.W.217:K.Suresh Babu, Retired as Superintending Engineer, AP State 62

Housing corporation limited, Guntur P.W.218:K.V. Prabhakara Rao, Retired Civil Asst. Surgeon P.W.219:B.Suvarchala, Superintendent, A­Section, District Police Office, Eluru.

P.W.220:P.V.S. Srinivas, Senior Assistant, Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Eluru, West Godavari District. P.W.221:G. Satyanarayana, Retired Project Director, AP State Housing Corporation limited, Kakinada P.W.222:R.Gowreeswara Rao, District Prohibition & Excise officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. P.W.223:SKDV Prasad, Superintendent, Prob. & Excise, Kakinada P.W.224:Rudraraju Srinivasa Subrahmanya Satyanarayana Raju, District Civil Supply Officer, Eluru P.W.225:Abdul Qualeel, Sub­Inspector, Prob. & Excise, APSBCL, IMFL Depot, Gollapudi, Vijayawada­I P.W.226:Ankaraboina Venkat Krishna Kumar Naidu, GM Regulatory and Legal cum Nodal officer, Vodafone Idea Limited. P.W.227:Sakala Madhusudana Gupta, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Limited P.W.228:Kandrathi Nagaraju, Section Officer, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District P.W.229:Y.Satish Kumar, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, R.R. Peta, Eluru. P.W.230:J.N.V.V.S.D.V.P. Srinivasa Rao, Branch Manager, District Co­ operative Central Bank Ltd., R.R Peta, Eluru. P.W.231:K.Rajasekhar Naik, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Palakol. P.W.232:Jalendra Singh, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Palakol. P.W.233:Pankaj Kumar, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Narasimharao peta, Eluru P.W.234:Reddi Malathi, Municipal Health officer, Municipal corporation, Eluru P.W.235:N.Krishna Prasad, Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad P.W.236:K.Seetharam, Inspector of Police, Traffic police station, Choutappal, Rachakonda P.W.237:Ch. Lakshmipathi, Addl. Supdt. of Police, Palnadu District P.W.238:I. Venkateswarlu, Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police P.W.239:R.Niranjan, Inspector of Police, Mushirabad Police station P.W.240:M. Narasimha Rao, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Vijayanagaram (Rtd)

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:

P.W.1/Ex.P1: Attested copy of the mediators report dated 16.12.20211 at 13.30 hrs. P.W.1/Ex.P2: Attested copy of the search List dated 16.12.2011 P.W.1/Ex.P3: Note Book. P.W.2/Ex.P4: Attested copy of the Mediators Report dated 05.03.2012 at 11­00 a.m. P.W.2/Ex.P5: File of M/s Sri Annapurna Wines, Division­3, Eluru­ GSL.No.2 containing 1 to 132 pages of Byreddy Vijaya Kumar P.W.2/Ex.P6: File of M/s Sri Chaitanya Durga Wines, Division­7, Eluru­ GSL.No.5 containing 1 to 97 pages of Chinta Raja Rao P.W.2/Ex.P7: File of M/s Sri Kiranmai Wines, Division­9, Eluru­ GSL.No.7 containing 1 to 71 pages of Tipirneni Janaki Ramana 63

P.W.2/Ex.P8: File of M/s Sri Viswanadh Wines, Division­8, Eluru­ GSL.No.8 containing 1 to 117 pages of Inti Katam Raju/LW.26 P.W.2/Ex.P9: File of M/s Sri Padmavathi Wines, Division­16, Eluru­ GSL.No.11 containing 1 to 135 pages of Kola Venkateswara Rao P.W.2/Ex.P10: File of M/s Sri Mrunalini Wines, Division­18, Eluru­ GSL.No.12 containing 1 to 133 pages of Donthamsetti Uma Maheswararao/LW.27 P.W.2/Ex.P11: File of M/s Sri Hanuman Wines, Vangaigudem, Eluru­ GSL.No.13 containing 1 to 109 pages of Donthamsetti Anji Babu/LW.28 P.W.2/Ex.P12: File of M/s Sri Viswa Teja Wines, Division­26, Eluru­ GSL.No.14 containing 1 to 112 pages of Puvvala Naga Raju P.W.2/Ex.P13: File of M/s Sri Padmaja Wines, Division­26, Eluru­ GSL.No.15 containing 1 to 109 pages of Puthi Ravi P.W.2/Ex.P14: File of M/s Sri Visweswara Wines, Division­43, Eluru­ GSL.No.29 containing 1 to 107 pages of Ganapaneni Siva Srinivasa Rao P.W.2/Ex.P15: File of M/s Sri Ambika Wines, Chataparru­ GSL.No.34 containing 1 to 109 pages of Chinnam Srimannarayana/LW.29 P.W.2/Ex.P16: File of M/s Sri Sai Sankeerthana Wines, Kalakurru­ GSL.No.38 containing 1 to 95 pages of Ungarala Sriramulul/LW.30 P.W.2/Ex.P17: File of M/s Sri Prasuna Wines, Buraigudem,Pedapadu Mandal­ GSL.No.47 containing 1 to 91 pages of Sri Andra Naageswararao P.W.2/Ex.P18: File of M/s Sri Yedukondalu Wines, Vatluru, Pedapadu Mandal­ GSL.No.48 containing 1 to 101 pages of Sri Madukuri Srinivas/LW.31 P.W.2/Ex.P19: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Division­36­ GSL.No.24 containing 1 to 99 pages of Sri Kolusu Jaya Sekhar/LW.87 P.W.2/Ex.P20: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Pedavegi,Pedavegi Mandal ­ GSL.No.40 containing 1 to 133 pages of Sri Bommisetti Sambasivarao/LW.88 P.W.2/Ex.P21: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Vegivada, Pedavegi Mandal ­ GSL.No.41 containing 1 to 105 pages of Sri Nagaboina Seetharamulu/LW.89 P.W.2/Ex.P22: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Kuchimpudi, Pedavegi Mandal ­ GSL.No.44 containing 1 to 131 pages of Sri Kolusu Sridhar/LW.90 P.W.2/Ex.P23: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Ramarao Gudem, Denduluru Mandal ­ GSL.No.63 containing 1 to 119 pages of Sri Burra Veera Samkar Gangadhar/LW.91 P.W.2/Ex.P24: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Gopannapalem, Denduluru Mandal ­ GSL.No.64 containing 1 to 119 pages of Sri Pachipulusu Srinivasa Rao P.W.2/Ex.P25: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Yerraguntapalli, Chintalapudi Mandal ­ GSL.No.71 containing 1 to 93 pages of Sri Balagam Sethubandhana Seetharamam P.W.2/Ex.P26: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Bhimadole, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.83 containing 1 to 109 pages of Sri Banka Satyanarayana Prasad/Accused ­3 P.W.2/Ex.P27: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Bhimadole, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.84 containing 1 to 127 pages of Sri Pokuri Kishore P.W.2/Ex.P28: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Gundugolanu, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.86 containing 1 to 93 pages of Sri Vajihala Subrahmanyam 64

P.W.2/Ex.P29: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Gundugolanu, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.87 containing 1 to 107 pages of Sri Naraharasetti Venkateswararao/LW.92 P.W.2/Ex.P30: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Polasanipalli, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.88 containing 1 to 107 pages of Sri Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore/LW.93 P.W.2/Ex.P31: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Polasanipalli, Bhimadole Mandal ­ GSL.No.89 containing 1 to 115 pages of Sri Eeli Srinu/LW.94 P.W.2/Ex.P32: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Dwarakatirumala, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.92 containing 1 to 101 pages of Sri Pulakandam Krishnarjunarao P.W.2/Ex.P33: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Dwarakatirumala, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.94 containing 1 to 91 pages of Sri Basivireddi Venkataramaiah P.W.2/Ex.P34: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Pandigudem, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.95 containing 1 to 111 pages of Sri Banka Rama Mohanara Rao P.W.2/Ex.P35: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Timmapuram, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.96 containing 1 to 105 pages of Sri Eerpina Giri Venkata Kumar/LW.95 P.W.2/Ex.P36: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, G.Kothapalli, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.97 containing 1 to 91 pages of Sri Shaik Shafiullah/LW.96 P.W.2/Ex.P37: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Gunnampalli, Dwarakatirumala Mandal ­ GSL.No.98 containing 1 to 95 pages of Sri Banka Appa Rao/LW.97 P.W.2/Ex.P38: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Ananthapalli shop­I Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.99 containing 1 to 99 pages of Sri Muthina Veerraju/LW.98 P.W.2/Ex.P39: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Ananthapalli shop­II Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.100 containing 1 to 89 pages of Sri Bollam Srinu/LW.99 P.W.2/Ex.P40: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Ananthapalli shop­I Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.101 containing 1 to 121 pages of Sri Pathuri Ramesh/LW.100 P.W.2/Ex.P41: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Ananthapalli shop­2 Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.102 containing 1 to 111 pages of Sri Pusuluri Srinivasa Rao P.W.2/Ex.P42: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Dubacherla, Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.103 containing 1 to 95 pages of Sri Pakalapati Nageswara Rao/LW.101 P.W.2/Ex.P43: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Dubacherla shop­2, Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.104 containing 1 to 122 pages of Sri Pakalapati Satyanarayana/LW.102 P.W.2/Ex.P44: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Chodavaram, Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.105 containing 1 to 89 pages of Sri Pallapati Ganga Raju P.W.2/Ex.P45: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Prakasaraopalem, Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.106 containing 1 to 91 pages of Sri Paidi Peddi Raju/LW.103 P.W.2/Ex.P46: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Pothavaram, Nallajerla Mandal ­ GSL.No.107 containing 1 to 119 pages of Sri Balusu Prasada Rao/LW.104 65

P.W.2/Ex.P47: File of permit room licence of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Unguturu, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.212 containing 1 to 137 pages of Sri Ruttala Satyanarayana P.W.2/Ex.P48: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Unguturu, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.213 containing 1 to 93 pages of Sri Dasari Krishna Mohan/LW.105 P.W.2/Ex.P49: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Chebrolu, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.214 containing 1 to 189 pages of Sri Kapalli Raghava Raju P.W.2/Ex.P50: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.215 containing 1 to 109 pages of Sri Kasireddi Mariyya/LW.106 P.W.2/Ex.P51: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Narayanapuram, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.216 containing 1 to 101 pages of Sri Rayapureddi Rajeswara Rao/LW.107 P.W.2/Ex.P52: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Badampudi, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.217 containing 1 to 91 pages of Sri Kapalli Venkata Raju P.W.2/Ex.P53: File of M/s Sri Dwaraka Wines, Kaikaram, Unguturu Mandal ­ GSL.No.218 containing 1 to 95 pages of Sri Appikatla Venkata Ramanjaneyulu. P.W.2/Ex.P54: Attested copy of the mediators report dated 05.03.2012 at 8.00 PM P.W.3/Ex.P55: Made up file pertaining to Jana Priya Wines, D.No. 41­2­32, Palakole Municipality Ward No.20 P.W.3/Ex.P56: Made up file pertaining to Harshitha Wines, D.No. 2­ 58/4, Digamarru shop No.1 P.W.3/Ex.P57: Made up file pertaining to Ksheera Wines, D.No. 2­54/1, Digamarru. P.W.3/Ex.P58: Made up file pertaining to Ramba Wines, D.No. No 5 1­74 Narsapuram Ward No.2 P.W.3/Ex.P59: Made up file pertaining to Jana Priya Wines, D.No. 14­ 1­39, Narsapuram Ward No.18 P.W.3/Ex.P60: Made up file pertaining to Kanaka Durga Wines, D.No. 14­1­ 28/9, Narsapuram Ward No. 19 P.W.3/Ex.P61: Made up file pertaining to Saptagiri Wines, D.No. 4­162, LB Cherla. P.W.3/Ex.P62: Made up file pertaining to Tirumala Wines, D.No. 3­47, Saripalli P.W.3/Ex.P63: Made up file pertaining to Srinivasa Wines, D.No. 2­24, Sitaramapuram No.1 P.W.3/Ex.P64: Made up file pertaining to Sri Balaji Wines, D.No. 3­ 206, Sitaramapuram No.2 P.W.3/Ex.P65: Made up file pertaining to Durga Wines, D.No. 6/25, Mallavaram. P.W.3/Ex.P66: Made up file pertaining to Mutyalamma Wines, D.No. 4­116/1, Mutyalapalli P.W.3/Ex.P67: Made up file pertaining to Sri Venkateswara Wines, D.No. 4­2, YV Lanka No.1 P.W.3/Ex.P68: Made up file pertaining to Sri Balaji Wines, D.No. 2­82, Y.V.Lanka No.2. P.W.3/Ex.P69: Made up file pertaining to Dwaraka wines, D.No.3­99, Nidamarru P.W.3/Ex.P70: Attested copy of the search proceedings

P.W.3/Ex.P71: Attested copy of mediators report on 05.03.2012 at 16.00 hrs. 

66

P.W.3/Ex.P72: Attested copy of Search list.

P.W.4/Ex.P73: Search Proceedings.

P.W.4/Ex.P.74: Mediator’s report dated 23.04.2012 at 13.00 hrs.

P.W.4/Ex.P.75: Search list

P.W.4/Ex.P.76: Three CDs data of lifting liquor stock and TCS collection.

P.W.5/Ex.P 77: Search Proceedings. P.W.5/Ex.P 78: Mediators Report dated 23.04.2012 at 14.00 hrs.

P.W.5/Ex.P 79: Search list.

P.W.5/Ex.P80: Three CDs data of lifting liquor stock and TCS collection. P.W.6/Ex.P81: Search Proceedings. P.W.6/Ex.P82: Mediator’s Report dated 06.06.2012 at 06.00 hrs.

P.W.6/Ex.P83: Search list.

P.W.7/Ex.P84: Search proceedings.

P.W.7/Ex.P85: Mediators Report dated 08.06.2012 at 07.15 hrs.

P.W.7/Ex.P86: Search list.

P.W.8/Ex.P87: Mediators report dated 25.06.2012 at 15.00 hrs.

P.W.9/Ex.P88: Mediators report dated 06.07.2012 at 15.00 hrs.

P.W.10/Ex.P89: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.10

P.W.11/Ex.P90: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.11

P.W.12/Ex.P91: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.12

P.W.13/Ex.P92: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.13

P.W.14/Ex.P93: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.14

P.W.15/Ex.P94: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.15

P.W.16/Ex.P95: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.16

P.W.17/Ex.P96: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.17

P.W.18/Ex.P97: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.18

P.W.19/Ex.P98: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.19

P.W.20/Ex.P99: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.20

P.W.21/Ex.P100: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.21

P.W.22/Ex.P101: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.22

P.W.23/Ex.P102: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.23 67

P.W.24/Ex.P103: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.24

P.W.25/Ex.P104: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.25

P.W.26/Ex.P105: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.26

P.W.27/Ex.P106: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.27

P.W.28/Ex.P107: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.28

P.W.29/Ex.P108: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.29

P.W.30/Ex.P109: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.30

P.W.31/Ex.P110: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.31

P.W.32/Ex.P111: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.32

P.W.33/Ex.P112: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.33

P.W.34/Ex.P113: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.34

P.W.35/Ex.P114: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.35

P.W.36/Ex.P115: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.36

P.W.37/Ex.P116: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.37

P.W.38/Ex.P117: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.38

P.W.39/Ex.P118: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.39

P.W.40/Ex.P119: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.40

P.W.41/Ex.P120: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.41

P.W.42/Ex.P121: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.42

P.W.43/Ex.P122: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.43

P.W.44/Ex.P123: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.44

P.W.45/Ex.P124: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.45

P.W.46/Ex.P125: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.46

P.W.47/Ex.P126: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.47

P.W.48/Ex.P127: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.48

P.W.49/Ex.P128: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.49

P.W.50/Ex.P129 Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.50

P.W.51/Ex.P130: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.51

P.W.52/Ex.P131: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.52

P.W.53/Ex.P132: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.53 68

P.W.54/Ex.P133: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.54

P.W.55/Ex.P134: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.55

P.W.56/Ex.P135: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.56

P.W.57/Ex.P136: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.57

P.W.58/Ex.P137: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.58

P.W.59/Ex.P138: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.59

P.W.60/Ex.P139: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.60

P.W.61/Ex.P140: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.61

P.W.62/Ex.P141: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.62

P.W.63/Ex.P142: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.63

P.W.64/Ex.P143: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.64

P.W.65/Ex.P144: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.65

P.W.66/Ex.P145: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.66

P.W.67/Ex.P146: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.67

P.W.68/Ex.P147: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.68

P.W.69/Ex.P148: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.69

P.W.70/Ex.P149: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.70

P.W.71/Ex.P150: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.71

P.W.72/Ex.P151: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.72

P.W.73/Ex.P152: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.73

P.W.74/Ex.P153: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.74

P.W.75/Ex.P154: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.75

P.W.76/Ex.P155: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.76

P.W.77/Ex.P156: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.77

P.W.78/Ex.P157: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.78

P.W.79/Ex.P158: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.79

P.W.80/Ex.P159: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.80

P.W.81/Ex.P160: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.81

P.W.82/Ex.P161: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.82

P.W.83/Ex.P162: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.83 69

P.W.84/Ex.P163: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.84

P.W.85/Ex.P164: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.85

P.W.86/Ex.P165: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.86

P.W.87/Ex.P166: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.87

P.W.88/Ex.P167: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.88

P.W.89/Ex.P168: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.89

P.W.90/Ex.P169: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.90

P.W.91/Ex.P170: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.91

P.W.92/Ex.P171: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.92

P.W.93/Ex.P172: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.93

P.W.94/Ex.P173: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.94

P.W.95/Ex.P174: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.95

P.W.96/Ex.P175: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.96

P.W.97/Ex.P176: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.97

P.W.98/Ex.P177: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.98

P.W.99/Ex.P178: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.99

P.W.100/Ex.P1790: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.100

P.W.101/Ex.P180: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.101

P.W.102/Ex.P181: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.102

P.W.103/Ex.P182: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.103

P.W.104/Ex.P183: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.104

P.W.105/Ex.P184: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.105

P.W.106/Ex.P185: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.106

P.W.107/Ex.P186: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.107

P.W.108/Ex.P187: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.108

P.W.109/Ex.P188: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.109

P.W.110/Ex.P189: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.110

P.W.111/Ex.P190: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.111

P.W.112/Ex.P191: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.112

P.W.113/Ex.P192: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.113 70

P.W.114/Ex.P193: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.114

P.W.115/Ex.P194: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.115

P.W.116/Ex.P195: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.116

P.W.117/Ex.P196: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.117

P.W.118/Ex.P197: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.118

P.W.119/Ex.P198: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.119

P.W.120/Ex.P199 Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.120

P.W.121/Ex.P200: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.121

P.W.122/Ex.P201: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.122

P.W.123/Ex.P202: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.123

P.W.124/Ex.P203: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.124

P.W.125/Ex.P204: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.125

P.W.126/Ex.P205: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.126

P.W.127/Ex.P206: Letter in L.Dis.No.326/2012(A) dated 21.05.2012 to the DSP, ACB, Vijayawada

P.W.127/Ex.P207: Letter in L.Dis No. 640/2012 (B), dated 12.10.2012

P.W.128/Ex.P208: Letter dated 31.07.2012

P.W.129/Ex.P209: letter dated 19.05.2012

P.W.129/Ex.P210:Letter in L.Dis. No. 212/2012(S), dated 28.07.2012 P.W.129/Ex.P211: Letter in L.Dis.No.405 / 2012 (S) dated 03.10.2012 of the Tahsildar, Eluru P.W.129/Ex.P212: Letter in L.Dis.No.405 / 2012 (S) dated 08.10.2012 of the Tahsildar, Eluru P.W.130/Ex.P213: Letter in RCB. No.633/2012, dated 07.10.2012 P.W.131/Ex.P214: Letter dated 31.07.2012 P.W.132/Ex.P215: Letter dated 08.05.2012 P.W.132/Ex.P216: Letter dated 31.07.2012 P.W.133/Ex.P217: Letter dated 07.08.2012 P.W.134/Ex.P218: Letter dated 19.05.2012 of the Tahsildar, Lingapalem Mandal P.W.134/Ex.P219: Letter dated 06.08.2012 P.W.135/Ex.P220: Letter dated 04.08.2012 P.W.136/Ex.P221: Letter dated 07.09.2012 P.W.137/Ex.P222: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.138/Ex.P223: Letter dated 10.09.2012 P.W.139/Ex.P224: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.140/Ex.P225: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.140/Ex.P226: Letter dated 12.09.2012 P.W.141/Ex.P227: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.141/Ex.P228: Letter dated 04.10.2012 71

P.W.142/Ex.P229: Letter dated 13.09.2012 P.W.143/Ex.P230: Letter dated 21.05.2012 P.W.143/Ex.P231: Letter dated 29.09.2012 P.W.144/Ex.P232: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.144/Ex.P233: Proforma issued by Tahsildar, Pedavegi P.W.145/Ex.P234: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.145 P.W.146/Ex.P235: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.146/Ex.P236: Letter dated 05.10.2012 P.W.147/Ex.P237: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.147/Ex.P238: Letter dated 29.09.2012 P.W.148/Ex.P239: Letter dated 03.10.2012 P.W.149/Ex.P240: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.149/Ex.P241: Letter dated 29.09.2012 P.W.150/Ex.P242: Letter dated 26.05.2012 P.W.150/Ex.P243: Letter dated 20.09.2012 P.W.151/Ex.P244: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.152/Ex.P245: Letter dated 22.05.2012 P.W.153/Ex.P246: Letter dated 09.06.2012 P.W.154/Ex.P247: Letter dated 26.05.2012 P.W.155/Ex.P248: Letter dated 23.05.2012 P.W.155/Ex.P249: Letter dated 07.09.2012 P.W.155/Ex.P250: Letter dated 10.09.2012 P.W.155/Ex.P251: Letter dated 27.09.2012 P.W.156/Ex.P252: Letter dated 19.05.2012 P.W.157/Ex.P253: Letter dated 19.05.2012 P.W.158/Ex.P254: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.159/Ex.P255: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.160/Ex.P256: Letter dated 20.05.2012 P.W.161/Ex.P257: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.162/Ex.P258: Letter dated 19.05.2012 P.W.163/Ex.P259: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.164/Ex.P260: Letter dated 21.05.2012 P.W.165/Ex.P261: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.166/Ex.P262: Letter dated 21.05.2012 P.W.167/Ex.P263: Letter dated 17.05.2012 P.W.168/Ex.P264: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.169/Ex.P265: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.170/Ex.P266: Letter dated 17.03.2012 P.W.171/Ex.P267: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.172/Ex.P268: Letter dated 19.05.2012 P.W.173/Ex.P269: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.174/Ex.P270: Letter dated 18.05.2012 P.W.175/Ex.P271: Letter dated NIL P.W.175/Ex.P272: Letter dated NIL P.W.175/Ex.P273: Letter dated NIL P.W.175/Ex.P274: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P275: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P276: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P277: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P278: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P279: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P280: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P281: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P282: Letter dated NIL P.W.176/Ex.P283: Letter dated NIL 72

P.W.177/Ex.P284: Letter dated NIL P.W.178/Ex.P285: Letter dated NIL P.W.179/Ex.P286: Letter dated 01.09.2012 P.W.179/Ex.P287: Letter dated 04.09.2012 P.W.180/Ex.P288: Letter dated 05.09.2012 P.W.181/Ex.P289: Letter dated NIL P.W.182/Ex.P290: Letter dated 31.08.2012 P.W.183/Ex.P291: Letter dated NIL P.W.183/Ex.P292: Letter dated NIL P.W.183/Ex.P293: Letter dated NIL P.W.183/Ex.P294: Letter dated NIL P.W.185/Ex.P295: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.185/Ex.P296: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.185/Ex.P297: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.186/Ex.P298: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.187/Ex.P299: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.188/Ex.P300: Letter dated NIL P.W.189/Ex.P301: Letter dated NIL P.W.189/Ex.P302: Letter dated NIL P.W.190/Ex.P303: Letter dated NIL P.W.190/Ex.P304: Letter dated 31.08.2012 P.W.191/Ex.P305: Letter dated NIL P.W.192/Ex.P306: Letter dated NIL P.W.192/Ex.P307: Letter dated NIL P.W.193/Ex.P308: Letter dated NIL P.W.193/Ex.P309: Letter dated NIL P.W.193/Ex.P310: Letter dated NIL P.W.193/Ex.P311: Letter dated NIL P.W.193/Ex.P312: Letter dated NIL P.W.194/Ex.P313: Letter dated NIL P.W.194/Ex.P314: Letter dated NIL P.W.195/Ex.P315: Letter dated 31.08.2012 P.W.196/Ex.P316: Letter dated NIL P.W.198/Ex.P317: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.198/Ex.P318: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.198/Ex.P319: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.198/Ex.P320: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.198/Ex.P321: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.198/Ex.P322: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.199/Ex.P323: Letter dated NIL P.W.199/Ex.P324: Letter dated NIL P.W.199/Ex.P325: Letter dated NIL P.W.199/Ex.P326: Letter dated NIL P.W.200/Ex.P327: Letter dated NIL P.W.201/Ex.P328: Letter dated NIL P.W.202/Ex.P329: Letter dated 06.09.2012 P.W.203/Ex.P330: File contains hand writings taken from P.W.203 in the presence of the mediators by the ACB officials, Vijayawada on 25.06.2012 P.W.203/Ex.P331: Another file contains hand writings taken from P.W.203 in the presence of the mediators by the ACB officials, Vijayawada on 25.06.2012 P.W.203/Ex.P332: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.203 P.W.204/Ex.P333: Hand writings of P.W.204 P.W.204/Ex.P334: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.204 73

P.W.206/Ex.P335: Letter dated 29.08.2012 P.W.207/Ex.P336: Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statement of the information about filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, No.11 P.W.207/Ex.P337: Letter dated 04.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees numbeirng 37 P.W.208/Ex.P338: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 02 P.W.209/Ex.P339: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 14 P.W.210/Ex.P340: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, one Number P.W.211/Ex.P341: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 02 P.W.212/Ex.P342: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 04 P.W.213/Ex.P343: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 03 P.W.214/Ex.P344: Letter dated 05.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 03 P.W.215/Ex.P345: Letter dated 06.10.2012 with statement of the information filing of I.T returns relating to A.4 wine shop licensees, Numbering 03 P.W.216/Ex.P346: Letter dated 06.09.2012 P.W.217/Ex.P347: Letter dated 07.09.2012 P.W.218/Ex.P348: Letter dated 23.06.2012 P.W.219/Ex.P349: Letter dated 31.08.2012 along with the service particulars of the officers P.W.220/Ex.P350: Letter dated 24.08.2012 along with the bio­data particulars of the officers P.W.221/Ex.P351: Letter dated 25.09.2012 P.W.222/Ex.P352: Letter dated 06.11.2012 along with the service particulars and details of Nowkarnamas of A4 shop P.W.223/Ex.P353: Letter dated 05.11.2012 P.W.224/Ex.P354: Letter dated 11.05.2012 of the Collector (CS), West Godavari District, Eluru P.W.225/Ex.P355: Letter dated 05.05.2012 of the Superintendent, Proh. & Excise Department, West Godavari District, Eluru P.W.226/Ex.P356: Letter dated 20.02.2013 of the Assistant Manager Legal & Regulatory – Alternate Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Hyderabad P.W.227/Ex.P357: Letter dated 18.02.2013 of the Alternate Nodal Officer, A.P., Reliance Communication Limited, Hyderabad P.W.228/Ex.P358: Sanction Order is vide G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 16.05.2014 of Revenue (VIG.V) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh 74

P.W.228/Ex.P359: Sanction Order is vide G.O.Ms.No.211, dated 16.05.2014 of Revenue (VIG.V) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh P.W.228/Ex.P360: Sanction Order is vide G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 16.05.2014 of Revenue (VIG.V) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh P.W.229/Ex.P361: Two letters dated 29.09.2012 & 10­10­2012 with the enclosed list P.W.230/Ex.P362: Copy of Bank Account Statements of A.O.1 P.W.231/Ex.P363: Letter of Branch Manager dated 15.10.2012 along with bank statement P.W.232/Ex.P364: Two bank account copies of Ravuri Srinivas and Tamminedi Subba Rao P.W.233/Ex.P365: Letter of Indian Bank, Eluru dated 01.10.2012 along with statement of account P.W.234/Ex.P366: Death Certificate of A4 P.W.235/Ex.P367: Expert Opinion dated 05.09.2013 P.W.240/Ex.P368: Original FIR along with occurrent report

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajahmahendravaram 75

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 

Calendar of Case tried by the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Calendar Case No.50/2018

Dates of:

OccurrenceComplaintApprehensionCommencementClosure ofSentence of accusedof trialtrial 11.04.201211.04.201214.12.201222.11.202326.03.202401.04.2024

Name of the Complainant: TheStateRepresentedbyDeputy Superintendent of Police, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru West Godavari District. Name of the Accused:1. Gutta Satyanarayana, S/o Venkata Subba Rao, Age 52 years, R/o D.No.25­9­17, Narasimharaopet, Eluru, West Godavari District. (Leader of GSN Liquor Group)

2. Guduri Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Ramadasu, Age 42 years, Business, R/o Addepally Mareswarao’s House, Brodipet 1st Lane, Palakol, West Godavari District (Leader of Janapriya Liquor Group)

3. Banka Satyanarayana Vara Prasad @ Banka Prasad, S/o Appala Swamy, Sekhar Veedhi, Power pet Toorpukapula Kalyana Mandapam, R/o Chanukypuri colony, Near Saibaba Temple, Eluru, W.G.Dist (Leader of Dwaraka Liquor Group)

4. Patchipulusu Srinivasa Rao, S/o: Venkata Bala Krishna Rao, Age 50 years, R/o: 7B­12­34, Toorpu Veedhi, Eluru. (Accountant of GSN Informal Liquor Group) (Died)

5. Ganugula Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 46 years, formerly SHO, P & E Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. Now at SHO, P&E Station, Palakol

6. Moganti Raja Sekhar, S/o Bhaskra Rao, Age 55 years, Formerly SHO, P&E, Narsapuram, W.G.Dist, now Tallarevu, East Godavari District.

7. D. Raghuma Reddy, S/o Sri Ram Reddy, Age 46 years, Formerly SHO, P&E, Bhimadole, West Godavari District, now at A.C, Distilleries, Vijayawada. (Case against Accused No.4 abated) Offence: U/Secs.8,12,14,13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.120(B) r/w 34 & 109 IPC Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: A1 to A3 & A5 to A7 are found not guilty

Judgment Pronounced: 01.04.2024 76

Explanation for Delay:

The record in C.C.No.43/2016 was received by transfer from Special

Judge, SPE & ACB Court, Vijayawada as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.131 Home (Courts­A) Department, dated 02.12.2016 and

ROC.No.109/E1/07 dt:07.12.2017 and the same is renumbered as

C.C.No.50/2018 on the file of this Court in the month of May, 2018. Notice was issued to both sides. Thereafter the Accused made their appearance on 06.06.2018. Thereafter matter was heard and Judgment is pronounced on 01.04.2024.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the Accused 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A3 & A5 to A7 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajahmahendravaram

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1) The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru.

2) The Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri U.U.Prasad

Special Judge for the trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, 4 th day of April 2024

Calendar Case No.90/2018

Between:­  The State Represented by District Inspector, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Kakinada, East Godavari

District.... Complainant.

AND Katru Malaki, S/o: Nagaraju, Age 34 years, Assistant Engineer (Operations), D­7 Section, APEPDCL, Satellite City, Rajahmundry, R/o: Flat No.501, Bathula Enclave, Gandhipuram­2, Rajahmundry.… Accused Officer 

This case has come up on 28.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State­Complainant and of

Sri N.V.V. Prasad, Advocate for the Accused Officer and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the District Inspector, Anti­Corruption Bureau,

Rajahmundry Range, Kakinada, East Godavari District filed the charge sheet in

Cr. No.16/RCT­RJY/2010 against the Accused Officer for the offences U/Sec.7 & 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the accused was caught red­handed when he received a bribe amount of

Rs.40,000/­ from the defacto complainant and the same was seized by the DSP

Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, East Godavari District.

2

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The father of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 possess a building in Adarsha Nagar,

Rajahmundry and on 08.10.2010, an application for conversion of electrical service for the above house was submitted by P.W.1 in the call centre with a request to convert the existing commercial category vide service No.011481 into domestic category. But there was no response from the electrical authorities.

On the same day, two challans for Rs.1,325/­ per meter were obtained and submitted to the call centre along with applications in the name of the father of

P.W.1. Subsequently, P.W.1 approached the Accused Officer and enquired about the service connections, who asked P.W.1 to apply for service connections for 2nd floor also, informing that all the four connections would be given simultaneously. Accordingly, P.W.1 obtained two more challans on 27th

October and submitted the same to the call centre. Subsequently i.e., prior to 15 days from the date of lodging his report, the Accused Officer inspected the above premises and demanded P.W.1 an amount of Rs.16,000/­ for each connection i.e., in total Rs.64,000/­. 

On 23.11.2010 the Accused Officer again inspected the above house along with his staff, got calculated the electrical points and informed the sister­ in­law of P.W.1 that the connections would not be given unless P.W.1 met him after returning from Sabarimala. On 26.11.2010 P.Ws.1 and 2 met the Accused

Officer in his office and when requested for service connections the Accused

Officer scolded them for not giving the bribe amount. When they pleaded, he/Accused Officer reduced his demand to Rs.10,000/­ for each connection i.e., in total Rs.40,000/­. The Accused Officer also asked them to apply for a re­ issue of meters as the time lapsed and got an application filed, signed the same and asked P.W.1 to obtain the signature of the ADE and submit the same in 3 the call centre and accordingly, P.W.1 did the same. On 27.11.2010 at about 12.00 Noon P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of the Accused Officer, who informed them that the two meters were re­issued and the other two meters would be issued after payment of a bribe of Rs.40,000/­. He/Accused Officer also directed them to pay the same on 29.11.2010 either at his office or at his residence, wherever he is available. As P.Ws.1 and 2 were not willing to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer, P.W.1 reported the same to the DSP,

ACB, Rajahmundry on 28.11.2010 who registered F.I.R on 29.11.2010 and laid trap and A.E/Accused Officer was caught red­handed with bribe amount received from P.W.1. During the trap ACB Police held chemical test and the test on the fingers of both hands, on the upper glass portion of the teapai and on the inner linings of right upper portion of the rear side of the pant pocket were yielded positively. The Chairman & Managing Director, APEPDCL,

Visakhapatnam being the competent authority to remove the Accused Officer from service accorded sanction order to prosecute the Accused Officer vide his proceedings in Lr. No. HRD/DC/PO­III/F.No.1563/10 D.No.381/12 dated 17.07.2012. Hence, the ACB Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet. 

3.Upon hearing the Spl. Public Prosecutor, charge under Sec.7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Accused

Officer was framed, read over and explained to him for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.Originally the charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge's Court for the trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, and the case was taken cognizance against the Accused Officer under Sec.7 & 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention 4 of Corruption Act, 1988 and summons were served on the Accused Officer. On the appearance of the Accused Officer, copies were furnished to him. After the establishment of this Court, as per the Proceedings of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in G.O.Ms.No.131 Home (Courts­A) Department dt.02.12.2016 and G.O.Ms. No.183 Law (L, LA&J­Home­Courts­A) Dept., dated 01.12.2017, the case has been transferred to this Court and the same is renumbered as C.C.No.90/2018.

5.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P1 to P32 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. P.W.3 is daughter­in­law of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the brother of

P.W.1. P.W.5 is the brother­in­law of the Accused Officer. P.W.6 is the sister of the Accused Officer. The P.W.7 is the A.D.E. Operations, Town­II,

Rajamahendravaram. P.W.8 is a resident of Polavaram Village and Mandal and the then outsourcing computer operator. P.W.9 is the D.E., Meters and

Protection, Eluru. P.W.10 is the then Executive Operator in the Call Center and meter Section in the Electrical Circle Office, Rajahmundry. P.W.11 is a retired

Chief General Manager, at APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. P.W.12 is a retired

Assistant Social Welfare Officer. P.W.13 is the Chief General Manager,

Operations, at APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. P.Ws.14 to 16 are the Investigating

Officers in this case.

6.On the closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused Officer was examined under Sec.313 Cr. P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence levelled against him and got marked Exs.D1 and D2 and filed a written statement.

5

7.Heard the learned Spl. P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the

Accused Officer.

8. The Spl. The Public Prosecutor argued that it was a trap case. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked

Exs.P1 to P32 and M.Os.1 to 9. The Accused Officer was the Assistant Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL as on the date of the trap. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 and his father/P.W.2 applied under Exs.P1 to P4 for four new electrical service connections to their house. The Accused Officer along with others inspected the house and demanded a bribe of Rs.64,000/­ @

Rs.16,000/­ for each connection for providing for electrical service connections.

P.Ws.1 and 2 expressed their inability to pay the bribe amount of Rs.64,000/­ hence the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.64,000/­ to

Rs.40,000/­. Having no other option P.W.1 reported to the ACB Police and accordingly, ACB Police held the trap. In the trap, the Accused Officer demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/­ and recovered the same from teapai in the house of the Accused Officer. As part of the trap, police held a sodium carbonate solution test on the right and left­hand fingers of the Accused Officer and further the tests yielded positive results. Accordingly, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 proves the demand and acceptance made by the Accused Officer and further recovery of the bribe amount, which is also proved by the chemical test held by the Investigating Officer under Mediator Report No. II/Ex.P23 and seizure of relevant records under Mediator Report No. III/Ex.P25. He further argued that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the timing of entry into the house of the Accused Officer and coming out of the house of the Accused Officer and giving signal, are ignorable since the same do not go to the root of the matter. He relied on the authority Yogesh Singh vs.

6

Mahabeer Singh & Others on 20th October 2016. Hence, the Accused Officer is liable for conviction.

9. The counsel for the defence mainly argued opposing the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant and his father wantonly implicating the Accused Officer in this case. As per the prosecution case, the defacto complainant mentioned in the FIR about demands allegedly made by the Accused Officer initially at the house of the defacto complainant and then on 26.11.2010 and also on 27.11.2010. The defacto complainant was running a cloth business at Dwarapudi situated at a distance of 23 KM from

Rajahmundry. His evidence in cross­examination categorically shows that the business holiday at Dwarapudi was Tuesday only and he further deposed that he carried business in the month of October and November 2010 on all days except on Tuesdays. The alleged demands made on 26.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 are not business holidays. Further, the evidence of P.W.2/father of

P.W.1 categorically shows that they met the Accused Officer on 27.11.2010 only and prior to that day, P.W.2 came to know about alleged demands through

P.W.1. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 during the cross­examination categorically show that at the time of alleged inspection by the Accused Officer,

P.W.1 was alone was present at the residence and rest of the family members are not there. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any other witnesses and the evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful. The P.W.1’s evidence in cross­examination categorically shows that P.W.1 filed IP and he was declared as insolvent. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful and cannot be relied on. Accordingly, the contents of the report/Ex.P6 of P.W.1 about alleged demands in the month of October and 26.11.2010 are not corroborated by any witness. Further, the contents of the report of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the preparation of letter/Ex.P5 through others by the Accused Officer and also 7 presenting the same at the call centre and the employee at the call centre made enquiry with the Accused Officer, is not proved by the prosecution since the employees/P.Ws.8 and 9 have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the contents of report/Ex.P6 are not proved.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the alleged demand by the Accused

Officer at his residence is highly doubtful solely on the reasons that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested persons and further, no pending official favour was with the

Accused Officer. As per the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during the cross­examination, on personal enquiry of P.Ws.1 and 2 they came to know about the absence of the Accused Officer at the office during afternoon hours on 29.11.2010 and then on the instructions of the DSP, P.W.1 made a phone call to the Accused Officer and on the information by the Accused

Officer only, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the trap team went to the house of the Accused

Officer. But all the prosecution case records seized under Mediator Report No.

II/Ex.P23 and the evidence of P.W.12/Mediator and P.W.14/Investigating

Officer do not disclose anywhere that they came to know presence of the

Accused Officer at the house over the phone and further, no piece of material has been produced so far. Further, both P.Ws 1 and 2 in their evidence categorically deposed that soon after they entered the house of the Accused

Officer, the Accused Officer enquired and questioned them why they came to the house. If it is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 and 2 came to their house on information from the Accused Officer over the phone, there was no need for the Accused Officer to question them about the reason for coming to their house. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically shows that the

Accused Officer went inside his house and returned after 10 to 15 minutes.

Hence, P.Ws.1 and 2 left the amount without the knowledge of the Accused

Officer on the teapai. Moreover, the evidence of family members of the Accused 8

Officer i.e., P.Ws.5 and 6 show otherwise that the Accused Officer questioned about offering the amount and informed them to take away the amount.

Accordingly, the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the recovery of the amount is doubtful and consequently, the demand for a bribe by the Accused officer is also doubtful.

Counsel for the defence further argued that there was no pending official favour with the Accused Officer. As per the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there were only three floors i.e., first, ground and second floor and each floor had one kitchen only. The evidence of Electricity Department witnesses i.e., P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 categorically show that one electrical service connection shall be provided for one kitchen. Accordingly, there shall be one electrical service connection for one floor. But the entire prosecution case categorically shows that initially, P.W.1 applied for two service connections for two portions of the first floor. Subsequently two electrical service connections to two portions of the second floor. Accordingly, applying two connections for one floor is against the rule and further each application is defective. With regard to pending applications, Exs.P3 and P4 applications for the second floor were returned and not pending even at the call centre. Hence, there are only two applications i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 were found from the custody of the

Accused Officer, the recovery of the applications/Ex.P1 and 2 from the custody of the Accused Officer is not sufficient since there was a process to apply through call centre only. Undisputedly, Exs.P1 and P2 were returned due to the non­availability of P.W.2/owner of the house and further those application entries for a reissue, those applications were not made entry call centre.

Accordingly, there was no pending official favour with the Accused Officer. It is settled law that mere recovery of amount is not sufficient and the prosecution is bound to prove demand and acceptance and pending official favour with the 9

Accused Officer. However, the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of pending official favour with the Accused Officer. Accordingly, the

Accused Officer is entitled to acquittal. 

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established a charge against the Accused

Officer under Secs.7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

CHARGE UNDER SECTION 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION

OF CORRUPTION ACT.

Section 7 and 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are as

follows:

"7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act :

whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, with the Central Government or any

State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause(c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant 

1. A Public Servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,­

2. …… 10

3. …….

4. ……..

(d) if he,­ (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (II) by using his position Presumption on as a public servant, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; 13(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 3 [four years] but which may extend to 4 [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec.20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows:

Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.— (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub­section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or 11 reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub­ sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

11. In the following authorities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that mere recovery of the tainted amount from the possession of the Accused Officer without proof of demand will not bring home an offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act.

a) In the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between B.Jayaraj

Vs. State of A.P. in Crl. Appeal No.696/2014 their lordships discussed the offence relating to Secs.7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) and held as follows:

"We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused.

In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)

(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 

9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under

Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the 12

Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent".

b) In the authority between the State through the Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Dr.Anup Kumar Srivastava in Crl.Appeal No.1336/2017

wherein his lordship held as follows:

"22) In P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police,

State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152, this Court has held as under:­ 

22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B.

Jayaraj in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasised, could follow only if there was proof of demand.

Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 

13

23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail.

Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. 

Hence, the proof of demand has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act which is absent in the case at hand". 

c) A.Subair vs. State of Kerala 2009 Legal Eagle 958. As per the facts of the case, the defacto complainant has not been tendered in evidence by the prosecution. P.W.12/I.O. did not say a word as to why the complainant was not examined. Hence, there is no substantive evidence to prove the factum of demand and his Lordship held as follows:

"23. Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs. 20/­ and Rs.5/­) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. It is true that the judgments of the courts below are rendered concurrently but having considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the High Court as well as the Special Judge committed manifest errors on account of unwarranted inferences. The evidence on record in this case is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt."

Given the above authorities, the presumption under Sec.20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act is rebuttable. If the initial burden regarding 14 demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution proving the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, then the presumption would arise under Sec.20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 until the contrary is proved. Then onus proving defence shifts upon the accused. As section 20 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, does not deal with offences under sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, the presumption under the same provision does not apply to 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Act. Hence, the prosecution is bound to prove offences under section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond a reasonable doubt. 

12.Regarding offences under section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, the prosecution examined the material witnesses proving the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the Accused Officer by abusing his official position. Now I am inclined to discuss the facts that led to the registration of the case and caught holding A.E./Accused Officer red­handed in a trap by ACB Police. 

SECTION 2(C) OF THE PREVENTION CORRUPTION ACT:

13.Undisputedly, the Accused Officer is Assistant Engineer, Operations, D7

Section, APEPDCL, Satellite City, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, as on the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of the Accused Officer comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of

The Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the employment of the Accused

Officer is not disputed by the defence.

SANCTION ORDER:

15 14. Investigating Officer/P.W.16 filed a charge sheet against the Accused

Officer on securing the sanction order for prosecuting the Accused Officer for the offence U/Sec.7 & 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So far as the sanction is concerned, during the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.13/Chief General Manager, Operations, APEPDCL,

Visakhapatnam. His evidence discloses that he was deposed before the Court based on the record maintained by their office relating to sanction proceedings issued to prosecute the Accused Officer. C.M.D. authorized him to give evidence on his behalf under Ex.P26. On 01.12.2010, their CMD Office received a radio message from the DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry stating that the Accused

Officer was trapped by the ACB Officials, Rajahmundry while demanding and accepting Rs.40,000/­ bribe from P.W.1 to give four new service connections to the house of the father of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2. In the said radio message they requested to suspend the Accused Officer and accordingly, the then CGM (HRD) who is the competent to suspend the Accused Officer issued proceedings of suspension of the Accused Officer on 02.12.2010. Later their CMD office received a copy of the FIR, a copy of the Mediators Report, the gist of the statements of the witnesses, the seized material during the trap and those copies with documents and service connection applications and the explanation of the Accused Officer. During that time, he was the CGM (HRD) and circulated files with the above documents to the CMD for the sanction proceedings through the Director (HRD) and others. The then CMD by name

Ahmad Nadeem issued prosecution sanction proceedings against the Accused

Office. The witness identified the signatures of Ahmad Nadeem, the then CMD on sanction proceedings since she worked during the said time. Ex.P27 is the sanction proceedings dated 17.07.2012. Para No.7 of Ex.P27 specifically 16 discloses about issuance of sanction proceedings to prosecute the Accused

Officer by CMD on perusal of the entire material.

In cross­examination, he/P.W.13 deposed that there are Board of

Directors to APEPDCL and there were four directors approximately in the board of APEPDCL by the date of Ex.P27. Board and Directors are also competent to remove employees in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. It is suggested by the defence that CMD has not signed on sanction file and proceedings in the month of July 2012 and CMD is not competent to issue sanction proceedings

CMD has not verified any file and he is deposing false. 

15. At this stage, perused the Ex.P27/Sanction Proceedings. Brief contents of the Sanction Order are mentioned as follows.

Ex.P27 is the Sanction Proceedings No. HRD/DC/PO­III/F.No.1563/10,

D.No.38/12 dated 17.07.2012 signed by Ahmad Nadeem, Chairman &

Managing Director, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. It discloses that the father of

Anem Umamaheswara Rao/P.W.1 possessed a building in Adarsha Nagar,

Rajahmundry. On 08.10.2010, an application for conversion of electrical service for the above house was submitted by P.W.1 in the call centre with a request to convert the existing commercial category vide service No.011481 into a domestic category. But there was no response from the electrical authorities.

On the same day, two challans for Rs.1,325/­ per meter were obtained and submitted to the call centre along with applications in the name of the father of

P.W.1. Subsequently, P.W.1 approached the Accused Officer and enquired about the service connections, who asked P.W.1 to apply for service connections for 2nd floor also, informing that all the four connections would be given simultaneously. Accordingly, P.W.1 obtained two more challans on 27th

October and submitted the same to the call centre. Subsequently i.e., prior to 17 15 days from the date of lodging his report, the Accused Officer inspected the above premises and demanded P.W.1 an amount of Rs.16,000/­ for each connection i.e., in total Rs.64,000/­. On 23.11.2010 the Accused Officer again inspected the above house along with his staff, got calculated the electrical points and informed the sister­in­law of P.W.1 that the connections would not be given unless P.W.1 met him after returning from Sabarimala. On 26.11.2010 P.Ws.1 and 2 met the Accused Officer in his office and when requested for service connections the Accused Officer scolded them for not giving the bribe amount. When they pleaded, he/Accused Officer reduced his demand to Rs.10,000/­ for each connection i.e., in total Rs.40,000/­. The

Accused Officer also asked them to apply for a re­issue of meters as the time lapsed and got an application filed, signed the same and asked P.W.1 to obtain the signature of the ADE and submit the same in the call centre and accordingly, P.W.1 did the same. On 27.11.2010 at about 12.00 Noon P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of the Accused Officer, who informed them that the two meters were re­issued and the other two meters would be issued after payment of a bribe of Rs.40,000/­. He/Accused Officer also directed them to pay the same on 29.11.2010 either at his office or at his residence, wherever he is available. As P.Ws.1 and 2 were not willing to pay the bribe amount to the

Accused Officer, P.W.1 reported the same to the DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry on 28.11.2010 who registered a case in Cr. No.16/RCT­RJY/2010 under section 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after observing the required formalities on 29.11.2010 and arrangements were made for laying a trap. 

And, having completed the pre­trap proceedings on 29.11.2010, the trap party reached the vicinity of the house of the Accused Officer and sent P.W.1 and accompanying witness to the house of the Accused Officer. Having received 18 the pre­arranged signal the trap party entered into the house of the Accused

Officer and found him sitting in the executive chair holding one wad of currency notes in his right hand. When the DSP disclosed his identity and the identity of the other trap party. The sodium carbonate solution test conducted on both hand fingers of the Accused Officer, on the upper glass portion of the teapai and the right upper portion of the rear side of the pant pocket yielded positive results. In pursuance of the statement of the Accused Officer, the tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­ and the night pants of the Accused Officer were also seized and on verification, the serial numbers of the currency notes were found to tally with that of the serial numbers of the currency notes provided by

P.W.1 during pre­trap proceedings. And whereas the above­said acts of the

Accused Officer constitute offences punishable under section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CMD, APEPDCL,

Visakhapatnam accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer and the relevant portions of Proceedings are mentioned as follows:

"And whereas, Sri Ahmad Nadeem, the Chairman & Managing

Director, EPDC of A.P. Ltd., Visakhapatnam being the competent authority to remove Sri Katru Malaki, formerly Assistant Engineer (Operations), A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Satellite City, Rajahmundry, East Godavari

District from service after fully and carefully examining the material (i.e.,

FIR, Mediators’ Reports I and II, gist of witnesses, copies of made up files, connected documents and explanation of the Accused Officer etc.,) placed before them in respect of the said allegations and having regard to the findings and circumstances of the case consider that Sri Katru

Malaki, formerly Assistant Engineer (Operations), A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Satellite

City, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, should be prosecuted in a

Court of Law for the above said offences.

Now therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub­section (1) of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the Government hereby accord sanction for the prosecution of Sri Katru 19

Malaki, formerly Assistant Engineer (Operations), A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Satellite

City, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, for the above said offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) and for any other cognate offences punishable under any other provisions of law for the time being in force in respect of the aforesaid acts and also for taking cognizance of the said offences by a Court of competent jurisdiction."

Ex.P27/Sanction Order specifically shows that material record i.e., FIR,

Mediators Report Nos. I and II and the list of witnesses and other records have been examined by the competent authority and then the sanction is granted.

Hence, I am of the view that after perusing the entire file and after satisfying the same, Ahmad Nadeem, Chairman & Managing Director, APEPDCL,

Visakhapatnam issued a Sanction Order to prosecute the Accused Officer through Sanction Proceedings No. HRD/DC/PO­III/F.No.1563/10, D.No.38/12

dated 17.07.2012. 

PRE­TRAP PROCEEDINGS:

16.As per the prosecution case, soon after the registration of the FIR against the Accused Officer, DSP/P.W.14 being the Investigating Officer, laid the trap to nab the Accused Officer red­handed with a bribe amount. To lay the trap,

P.W.14 secured mediators/P.W.12 and L.W.16 and secured the presence of

P.W.1/defacto complainant and his father/P.W.2. P.W.1 brought the proposed bribe amount of Rs.40,000/­ (Rs.500x76 and Rs.1,000x2) as instructed by the

DSP/P.W.14. In the office of ACB, Rajahmundry, the mediators read over the contents of FIR to P.W.1/defacto complainant, in order to ascertain truth and after confirming the contents of FIR by defacto complainant/P.W.1 and later, at the request of DSP/P.W.14, P.W.1 produced proposed bribe amount. The mediator/L.W.16 received the bribe amount and counted the amount. After 20 noting down each and every detail of currency notes, as part of laying the trap,

DSP explained the significance of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder and the change of sodium carbonate solution to pink colour, if contact with phenolphthalein powder. On the instructions of DSP, woman police constable No.1956/G. Sridevi held sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein test and then the woman police constable applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and kept the same in the pant right side pocket of P.W.1.

P.W.14/DSP instructed the P.W.1 to hand over the bribe amount only on demand of the Accused Officer and further after handing over the bribe amount, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had to give a pre­arranged signal by lighting the pen cell torch light twice to Inspector/Murali Mohan/P.W.15 and in turn Inspector has to relay the signal to the trap team. Then the woman police constable/G. Sridevi rinsed her hand fingers in the solution and the same turned pink colour. The DSP, ACB has taken precautions like rinsing the hand fingers of all the persons in sodium carbonate solution and the solution remained colourless. The sample of sodium carbonate powder and phenolphthalein powder were seized in a separate cover and sealed. All those proceedings were mentioned in the Mediators Report No. I/Ex.P20. The proceedings were commenced at 15.45 hours and completed by 17.15 hours on 29.11.2010. The P.W.1/defacto complainant, P.W.12/Mediator and

P.W.14/DSP were deposed similarly and their evidence is consistent with the contents of Mediators Report No. I/Ex.P20.

17. Perused Ex.P20/Mediator Report No. I which contains all the details about laying the trap including ascertaining the truth of the contents of the report by mediators, handing over the proposed bribe amount by P.W.1 to the mediators, mediators noted down the details of currency notes of Rs.40,000/­ (Rs.500x76 and Rs.1,000x2) and holding sodium carbonate solution test after 21 applying phenolphthalein powder on the proposed bribe amount. It further shows the instructions given by P.W.14/DSP to P.W.1/defacto complainant, to pay a bribe amount of Rs.40,000/­ only on demand from the Accused Officer and after acceptance of the bribe amount, the P.W.1 has to give a pre­arranged signal by lighting twice with pen cell torch. All the above precautions were held in the ACB Police Station, Rajahmundry commencing at 15.45 hours and concluded by 17.15 hours on 29.11.2010. Ex.P20 further shows attestations of both mediators i.e., P.W.12 and L.W.16, Investigating Officer/P.W.14 and other

ACB staff.

Regarding the contents of Mediators Report No. I/Ex.P20, the P.Ws.1, 12, 14 deposed in support of the contents of Mediators Report No. I/Ex.P20, but no contradictory material has been elicited during the evidence of

P.W.1/defacto complainant and P.W.12/Mediator and PW.14/Investigating

Officer. Though P.W.1/defacto complainant cross­examined regarding the contents of Mediators Report No. I/Ex.P20, P.W.1 evidence shows his presence at ACB Office, Rajahmundry at the time of preparation for trap under Ex.P20.

But nothing was elicited contrary to Ex.P20. Similarly, P.W.12/Mediator was cross­examined about his presence at the ACB Office, Rajahmundry and the same did not disclose any material contrary to Ex.P20. 

With this discussion, I hold that the prosecution has proved the contents of

Ex.P20 about preparation to lay a trap on the Accused Officer, with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 12 and 14. 

TRAP:

18.As per the prosecution case, after completion of pre­trap proceedings under Ex.P20, all the trap team including P.Ws.1 and 2 initially went to the office of the Accused Officer around 6.00 p.m. and on enquiry, they came to know that the Accused Officer was not in the office. Then all of them went to 22 the house of the Accused Officer. There, on the instructions of DSP/P.W.14,

P.Ws.1 and 2 went into the house of the Accused Officer and came out and gave the pre­arranged signal by 7.30 p.m. Immediately all the trap team went into the house of the Accused Officer and found the Accused Officer holding wade of currency in his hands. On coming to the identity of the ACB Officials, the Accused Officer kept the wade of currency on teapai and started rubbing his right hand to his pants. Immediately the DSP held sodium carbonate test on the right hand and left hand separately on the same turned to pink colour.

After recovery of Wade of currency/M.O.5 and found them tallied with currency mentioned in pre­trap proceedings/Ex.P20. Subsequently, DSP/P.W.14 held a sodium carbonate test on the surface of teapai where a tainted amount was found and the same yielded positive. Later, a sodium carbonate solution test was held on the right pocket portion of the pants of the Accused Officer and the same yielded a positive result. On enquiry by P.W.14, the Accused Officer replied that he had not demanded a bribe and P.W.1 gave the amount voluntarily and further stated that the amount was received for the installation of transformer at the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. Then DSP secured the presence of

P.W.1 and recorded his version stating that after entering into the house of the

Accused Officer, they paid the bribe amount on the demand of the Accused

Officer and they denied the version of the Accused Officer. Later P.W.2 also stated in the same lines as P.W.1. During these proceedings, P.W.14/DSP sealed and labelled all the solutions and tainted amounts and seized the same.

Subsequently, DSP held a search in the house of the Accused Officer and closed all the proceedings. At this stage, I feel it is necessary to produce the brief contents of Mediators Report No.II/Ex.P23. 

19. Mediator Report No. II/Ex.P23 23

It is drafted at the residence of the Accused Officer during the period 20.15 hours on 29.11.2010 and 6.00 hours on 30.11.2010. It discloses that all the trap team including mediators/P.W.12, L.W.16 and 

P.Ws.1 and 2 left the office of ACB, Rajahmundry at 5.30 p.m. and reached the office of the Accused Officer by 5.50 p.m. On the instructions of DSP, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of the Accused

Officer followed by Inspector/P.W.15 at 6.10 hours and then they returned as the Accused Officer was not available. 

Later, all of them left there at 6.20 p.m. and reached the apartment of the Accused Officer i.e., Bathula Enclave by 6.45 p.m. On the instructions of DSP, P.W.1 and another followed by P.W.15, went towards the house of the Accused Officer. P.W.1/defacto complainant and his father/P.W.2 went inside of Bathula Enclave and to the house of the 

Accused Officer whereas Inspector/P.W.15 took a vantage position. At about 7.30 p.m., P.W.15 received a signal from P.W.1 and relayed the signal by lighting and focusing two cell torches twice. By 7.32 p.m., DSP, and mediators reached the house of the Accused Officer through a lift whereas other staff came there through steps. There, DSP advised P.Ws.1 and 2 to wait on the fourth floor and then with the permission of the 

Accused Officer, entered the house of the Accused Officer and found the 

Accused Officer sitting in an executive chair with a wade of currency in his right hand, in the entrance hall. On disclosure of the identity of

DSP/P.W.14, the Accused Officer felt perturbed and kept the wade of currency on teapai and started rubbing his right­hand fingers to his pant right side. On ascertaining the identity of the Accused Officer, DSP prepared sodium carbonate solutions for the right hand and left hand and after rinsing the right hand and left hand of the Accused Officer both the solutions turned to pink colour. The DSP got sealed and seized both solutions. On questioned by DSP about the receipt of the bribe amount, the Accused Officer stated about the receipt of Rs.40,000/­ from P.W.1 and has shown a wade of currency kept on teapai. Then mediator/L.W.16 verified and counted the currency of Rs.40,000/­ (Rs.500x76 and Rs.1,000x2) and noted all the details of every currency note. Then the 

DSP seized the amount of Rs.40,000/­/M.O.5. Then they served 165 Cr. 

P.C. proceedings and the Accused signed on it. In the meanwhile DSP made an enquiry about the presence and identity of P.W.5/brother­in­ 24 law of the Accused Officer working at Singareni Collaries, Adilabad and also ascertained the identity of P.W.6/wife of P.W.5­cum­sister of the Accused

Officer and Swarna Latha/L.W.7. P.W.5 stayed for some time and then went inside the house. On enquiry about the bribe amount, the Accused 

Officer maintained silence and then stated that P.W.1 came to the house along with his father/P.W.2 at 7.00 p.m. and he asked them to sit inside the house and came to the main hall and enquired P.W.1 that why he came to the house. P.W.1 replied that he came there to request him/Accused Officer to issue a new service connection and then he voluntarily gave some amount to him Accused Officer further stated that he received Rs.40,000/­ for an estimated cost of installing a transformer at his house and he received the amount at the request of P.Ws.1 and 2 only since they do not know the procedural aspects and accordingly the amount was not as bribe and further he did not demand any bribe from 

P.W.1 or P.W.2. Then DSP got prepared sodium carbonate solution and rubbed the surface of teapai with cotton swab and dipped into the solution and the same turned to light pink colour/M.O.6 and then he sealed and seized the same. After providing alternative pants to the

Accused Officer through P.W.5, the right side pocket portion of the night pant in grey colour the Accused Officer was subjected to a sodium carbonate solution test and the same turned to light pink colour and later DSP sealed and seized the solution/M.O.8. 

On enquiry, the Accused Officer informed about new service connections of P.Ws.1 and 2 as the same are available in the office and call centre and further produced his personal diary/Ex.P21 which does not contain any information. On information, P.W.1 came into the main hall and informed what happened when they met the Accused Officer. 

P.W.1 informed that the Accused Officer opened the door soon after the calling bell was rung by them. They wished the Accused Officer and sat there on the sofa for some time and also on the sofa in the main hall. 

After some time the Accused Officer came to the main hall and asked as they came to the house. P.W.1 informed the Accused Officer that they came to issue a new service connection on behalf of his father. Then the 

Accused Officer asked whether the bribe amount of Rs.40,000/­ was brought or not. On positive reply of P.W.1, the Accused Officer asked for the amount and after payment by P.W.1, the Accused Officer received 25 with a right hand and counted with both hands and then the Accused 

Officer informed he would process the file and provide service connection and asked them to go. Then P.W.1 and 2 came to the corridor and went 

Northern end of the corridor and gave the signal to P.W.15 and on the signal of P.W.15, the trap team came to the house of the Accused Office within two minutes. The version of the Accused Officer was confronted with P.W.1 and P.W.1 denied the version of the Accused Officer and stated that he gave the amount of Rs.40,000/­ bribe on demand of the 

Accused Officer, but not otherwise. Later, DSP enquired P.W.2 and he stated on the same lines as P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 also denied the version of the Accused Officer and asserted that the amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid towards the bribe on the demand of the Accused Officer. Then DSP examined P.Ws.5, 6 and L.W.7 i.e., brother­in­law, sister and wife of the 

Accused Officer and all of them stated that they did not observe what happened since they were inside the house. 

Later, the ACB police conducted a search and noted the goods available in the house and they did not seize any property. Later, DSP collected the sample of sodium carbonate powder sealed, labelled and seized. Accordingly, the proceedings were completed by 6.00 a.m. on 30.11.2010 i.e., the next day. 

20.Perused the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant, P.W.2/father of

P.W.1, P.W.12/Mediator and P.W.14/DSP. All the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,

P.W.12 and P.W.14 show consistently that initially, they reached the office of the Accused Officer and after coming to know the absence of the Accused

Officer at the office, all of them went to the house of the Accused Officer situated at Bathula Enclave, Rajahmundry.

(b) P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically deposed that they went into the house of the

Accused Officer after 6.45 p.m. and fifteen minutes thereafter they gave the pre­arranged signal, then ACB Officials went into the house of the Accused

Officer. On the instructions of the DSP, they were on the fourth floor of the 26 building and around 10.30 or 11.00 p.m. of 29.11.2010, they went into the house of the Accused Officer and their DSP recorded their version about payment of bribe on demand. Both of them have not deposed about the time of entry into the house of the Accused Officer.

In the chief examination, both P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that after entering into the house of the Accused Officer, on the offer of the Accused Officer, they occupied the sofa. Then the Accused Officer went into the house and returned after ten minutes and then demanded and received a bribe amount. In cross­ examination, both P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed the Accused Officer and questioned them initially why they came to his house. Later they informed me that they came here for a new electrical service connection and they paid a bribe amount after demand by the Accused Officer. Accordingly, the defence has taken the stand that the Accused Officer went inside the house and returned after 10 to 15 minutes and in the meanwhile P.Ws. 1 and 2 left the amount on the teapai.

However, the claim of the defence has no force since the sodium carbonate solution test held on the right hand and left hand yielded positive results. 

(a)The evidence of P.W.12/Mediator and P.W.14/DSP in chief show that soon after entering the house of the Accused Officer they found the Accused

Officer sitting in a chair and holding currency notes in hand. After knowing the identity of the ACB Officials, the Accused Officer kept the currency notes/tainted amount on the teapai. The sodium carbonate solution test held on the right hand and left hand of the Accused Officer yielded positive results and the same/M.Os.3 and 4, were seized. After recovery of the tainted amount and found it tallied, they held a sodium carbonate solution test on the surface of the glass teapai and also on the right pocket portion of the pants of the

Accused Officer and the same yielded positive results and accordingly both the 27 solutions/M.Os.6 and 7 were sealed and labelled and seized. After recording the denied version of the Accused Officer that he has not demanded any amount and the amount was paid voluntarily, DSP/P.W.14 secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and confronted the version of the Accused Officer to

P.Ws.1 and 2 and both of them stated in support of the prosecution about payment of the amount Rs.40,000/­ on demand of the Accused Officer and the

Accused Officer counted the amount with his both hands.

Regarding sodium carbonate test, P.W.12 deposed in the cross­ examination, as follows:

“The powder used by the ACB police in this case are sodium carbonate and another which I can not name the detail. I can not differentiate both the powders used by the ACB Police with my naked eye……………….I never saw sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder in my life time except this case. I can not say which one is sodium carbonate and the other is phenolphthalein powder which I have seen on that day of trap………………….Initially witness stated that phenolphthalein powder was brought to the place of trap and witness again stated that sodium carbonate powder. Both the powders are white in colour. I have not tested the powder brought to the place of trap is whether sodium carbonate or phenolphthalein powder.”

In the cross­examination, P.W.14 deposed as follows:

“It is true that the cloth which had traces of phenolphthalein powder can form pink colour stains if it contacts with sodium carbonate solution. It is not true to suggest that MO.8/pant does not show any pink colour stains……………………………… ………………………………………………….I got rubbed the teepoi surface with cotton swab and the swabs were subjected to sodium carbonate solution and the same turned to light pink colour.”

He denied the suggestion that M.Os.3, 4 and 7 are manipulated to strengthen the prosecution case.

28

The evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.14 consistently shows conducting sodium carbonate test on the right hand, left hand, the surface of teapoi and on the pant of the Accused Officer. The said evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.14 prove the contents of Mediator Report No. II/Ex.P23 though miner discrepancies exist in the evidence of P.W.12 regarding his knowledge about powders used there.

(c)Regarding recovery of amount, P.W.14 deposed in the cross­examination as follows:

“It is true that place of recovery of tainted amount shall be shown in rough sketch by Investigating Officer………………...It is not true to suggest that I have not shown place of recovery of tainted amount in rough sketch/Ex.P22. Witness voluntarily stated that I have marked specifically as No.1 in rough sketch and the same is place of recovery of tainted amount. It is true that I have not shown teapoi and chair at the point No.1 which is said to be place of recovery of tainted amount.”

During the cross­examination, defence counsel questioned the presence of an envelope containing currency notes. P.W.12 deposed that he signed on an envelope of currency notes on the date of the trap itself. Counsel for the defence argued that the prosecution had to explain how the envelope surfaced at the time of seizure but the prosecution failed to explain the same.

Regarding presence of envelop, the evidence of P.W.12 during the cross­ examination is produced as follows:

“MO.5 is the currency notes kept in the envelope. Defence

Counsel reported that MO.5 currency with envelope may be considered.

Superintendent of this court attending bench work submitted that the currency notes kept in the envelope which is further kept in sealed cloth cover…………………….It is true that Ex.P23 do not disclose any recitals 29 that I have seen the accused officer holding currency in his hand after I entered into the flat. (Witness verified the Ex.P23 and answered).”

As argued by the Spl. P.P., minor discrepancies about timings, chemical tests etc., are not material to disbelieve about recovery of tainted amount from the house of the Accused Officer. However, the argument of the defence counsel about the existence of the envelope is not answered by the prosecution.

With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove laying the trap on the Accused Officer and in the part of the trap and the amount having smears of Phenolphthalein powder has been successfully seized from the Accused Officer and chemical test held on hands of the Accused Officer mentioned in the Mediators Report No. II/Ex.P23 at the house of the Accused Officer, beyond suspicion. 

21.All the above evidence of P.W.1/informant, P.W.2/father of P.W.1,

P.W.12/mediator and P.W.14/Investigating Officer that arrival of the ACB

Officials, holding chemical test on fingers of right and left hand of the Accused

Officer and the same are turned into pink colour and seizure of tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­ /M.O.5 and seizure of solution/M.Os.3 and 4 that proved the contents of the trap proceedings/Ex.P23. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the recovery of the bribe amount of

Rs.40,000/­ and holding chemical test on the right hand and left­hand fingers of the Accused Officer and the same are yielded positively, noted in Mediators

Report No. II/Ex.P23. 

22.In view of the authorities discussed above para No.12, mere recovery of the bribe amount from possession of the Accused Officer without proof of demand will not bring home an offence punishable against the Accused Officer.

30

Hence, the prosecution has to prove the other material ingredients about demand and pending official favour beyond a reasonable doubt. For the application of the presumption, the defence relied on the following authority and in the said authority Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the absence of proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise:

a) In V.Venkata Subbarao Vs State (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 305

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

24. Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under : 

"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or  section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) or sub­ section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." 

b) In State through CBI Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1 57094381 / Hon’ble Apex Court of India referred the authority P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police.

31

c) In the following authority Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the accused charged can rebut through cross examination of the witness or by adducing reliable evidence. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. Cbi Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1654606/ Hon’ble Apex Court of India held as follows:

“19. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross­examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. 

20. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the 

Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under

Section 4 under the Prevention of Corruption Act . It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. 

It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (See Jhangan Vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736). (Emphasis supplied)”

In view of the authorities discussed above, it is clear that the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would arise only on proof of demand and acceptance of bribe. I already discussed 32 about the recovery of the tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­ from the possession of the A.E./Accused Officer under the head of trap. Now, the prosecution is liable to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the A.E/Accused Officer. 

DEMAND:

23.As per the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are only the witnesses for the demand for a bribe by the Accused Officer prior to the trap and on the date of the trap. Hence, I am inclined to discuss the demand prior to the trap and the demand during the trap.

I. DEMAND PRIOR TO TRAP:

As per the prosecution case i.e., FIR, P.W.1/informant reported to ACB

Police with the allegation that the Accused Officer demanded a bribe amount of

Rs.40,000/­ for providing electrical service connection to their house and they submitted application/Exs.P1 and P2 for the first floor, Exs.P3 and P4 for the second floor. Report of P.W.1/Ex.P6 discloses about submission of four applications for electrical service connections i.e., two applications/Exs.P1 and

P2 on 08.10.2010 and two applications/Ex.P3 and P4 on 27.10.2010.

Subsequently, the Accused Officer visited the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and demanded a bribe of Rs.64,000/­ @ Rs.16,000/­ per meter. P.Ws.1, 2 and family members went to Sabarmalai on 22.11.2010 and returned on 26.11.2010 and came to know through family members that the Accused

Officer inspected the house on 23.11.2010 and informed the family members to further inform P.Ws.1 and 2 has to meet the Accused Officer in the office.

Accordingly, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 and expressed their inability to pay the amount, hence, the

Accused Officer reduced the amount from Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­. As the

Accused Officer informed them to apply for reissue for the two services/Exs.P1 and P2. Then t the Accused Officer wrote a letter and signed addressed to 33

A.D.E. and informed them to hand it over at the call centre. Both of them went to the call centre and there they came to know that the letter required the signature of D.E. After telephonic intimation of the Accused Officer, the woman at the call centre received the letter. On the next day i.e., 27.11.2010 both

P.Ws.1 and 2 met the Accused Officer in office and the Accused Officer informed that two meters were reissued. Then the Accused Officer insisted on a bribe amount of Rs.40,000/­ for complying with the same and further insisted they pay the amount at 6.00 p.m. in the office on 29.11.2010 or at the residence of the Accused Officer. The Accused Officer informed his residence details to P.Ws.1 and 2. Later, they reported to the ACB Police on 28.11.2010 at 1.50 p.m. 

Accordingly, Ex.P6 show that the initial demand for a bribe took place at the residence of P.Ws.1 and 2 subsequent to 27.10.2010, the second demand took place at the office of the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 and the third demand took place on 27.11.2010. The 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.1 show the demands for a bribe by the Accused Officer as mentioned above.

The 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.2 show that after submission of applications on 08.10.2010 i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 when P.W.2 met the Accused

Officer and informed P.W.2 that the Accused Officer informed him to apply for further two meters and the Accused Officer will provide all four meters at a time and further informed to pay bribe of Rs.64,000/­ for four meters. The 161

Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 further shows demands for a bribe of Rs.40,000/­ by the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 and also on 27.11.2010. Then they reported to the ACB Police. 

On perusal of the 161 Cr. P.C. Statements of both P.Ws.1 and 2, we can notice that there is an inconsistency between the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, particularly about the initial demand for bribe by the Accused Officer. The 34 report/Ex.P6 and 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 specifically show that after applying for connections a second time under Exs.P3 and P4 on 27.10.2010, the Accused Officer inspected the house and informed P.W.1 about the demand for bribe. Whereas, 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.2 is silent about applying for further two connections/Exs.P3 and P4 on 27.10.2010 and the personal inspection of the house by the Accused Officer. However, the 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of P.W.2 categorically shows that P.W.2 is a hearsay witness for the initial demand for a bribe. 

24.The 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 show that they paid challan for two services on 08.10.2010 for the first floor. On the advice of the Accused Officer, he applied for a further two meters on 27.10.2010. Four days thereafter, the

Accused Officer inspected their house and demanded Rs.16,000/­ per meter.

Similarly, when they met the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010, the Accused

Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­ and lastly demanded on 27.11.2010 for Rs.40,000/­. The 164 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.2 show that after P.W.1 applied for two service connections on 08.10.2010, P.W.1 informed him that P.W.1 met the Accused Officer and the Accused Officer demanded a bribe of Rs.64,000/­ for four connections. Subsequently, demands

dated 26.11.2010 for Rs.10,000/­ per connection and on 27.11.2010 by the

Accused Officer were made in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 

There is inconsistency between 164 Cr. P.C. Statements of both P.Ws.1 and 2.

The 164 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.1 is silent about applying for further two connections on 27.10.2010 and also the Accused Officer’s inspection at the house. 

25.During the trial, P.W.1/defacto complainant deposed about the demands for a bribe by the Accused Officer in chief and cross­examination. In the chief examination, P.W.1 deposed that on 08.10.2010, L.W.2/P.W.2 applied for two 35 service connections on the first floor under Exs.P1 and P2. On, 27.10.2010, he along with his father/P.W.2 met the Accused Officer and on the advice of the

Accused Officer, he applied further two connections/Exs.P3 and P4. After 10 or 15 days, the Accused Officer visited the house, verified and demanded a bribe of Rs.16,000/­ for each new service connection. Subsequently, on 26.11.2010 when they met the Accused Officer, after return from Sabarimala and after their request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­. On the next day i.e., 27.11.2010, the Accused Officer reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.40,000/­ for providing four new service connections. 

 In the cross­examination P.W.1 deposed as follows:

“I filed IP No.23/2015 at Rajahmundry……………...I left

Rajahmundry in the year 2015 after filing IP due to pressures from my creditors. In the year 2010, I used to look after shop situated at

Dwarapudi whereas my father used to look after the shop at

Rajahmundry……………………… General weekly holiday for my shop at

Dwarapudi was Tuesday but not on Sunday due to sandy day in

Dwarapudi Village. I used to maintain shop from morning 8.00 a.m. to evening 8.00 p.m. on every day at Dwarapudi. I was running my shop at 

Dwarapudi even during 15.10.2010 to 30.10.2010 except on

Tuesdays…………… We never enquired about the compliance of our applications after submission of Exs.P1 to P4 applications through Mee

Seva/ Call Center. I have run my shop at Dwarapudi even during period 15.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 except on Tuesdays. We met the accused officer at the end of October and accused officer agreed to convert commercial category to domestic category. For the conversion, the accused officer has not demanded any bribe……………… Initially I went to D­7 section on 15.10.2010 and subsequently I went to D­7 section on 27.10.2010 and later I went there on 26.11.2010. I never visited D­7 section during 28.10.2010 to 25.11.2010………….It is true that my shop at Dwarapudi was run by me from 01.11.2010 to 16.11.2010 from morning 8:00 AM to

Evening 8:00 PM except on Tuesdays………..Accused Officer do not

know my name. My brothers and my father also did not have any 36 acquaintance with accused officer. Accused Officer alone visited my house once. It is true that Accused Officer do not know location of my house. Accused officer met have visited my house either 9 th or 10.11.2010. As on the date of visit of accused officer to my house, I was alone in my house and there was no presence of my father and brothers.

It is true that I did not state before Magistrate about visit of Accused

Officer to my house in the month of November i.e. after 10 or 15 days from 27.10.2010 and demanded Rs.16,000/­ for each meter. Accused officer visited my house twice i.e. one prior to 10.11.2010 and another visit was while I was on tour to Sabarimalai. I never met the accused officer during 27.10.2010 to 26.11.2010 either at office of the accused officer or other places. It is true that I stated before the Magistrate that I met the accused officer on 08.10.2010 and one week thereafter I met him and four days thereafter, the Accused officer personally came to my house and on this visit of accused officer only, the accused officer demanded for bribe………….I spent 10 minutes only at electricity office on 26.11.2010 around 4:00 PM and came out with Ex.P5 application and nothing was happened in the office of Accused Officer.”

The cross­examination of P.W.1 categorically shows that P.W.1 was maintaining a shop at Dwarapudi situated at a distance of 23 KM from

Rajahmundry. Tuesday was a weekly holiday for his shop at Dwarapudi. The

Accused Officer might have visited their house on either 9th or 10.11.2010 and at that time he was alone in the house and there was no presence of his father and brothers. He never met the Accused Officer during the period 27.10.2010 to 26.11.2010 either at the office of the Accused Officer or other places. He spent ten minutes only at the electrical office on 26.11.2010 around 4.00 p.m.

and came out with an Ex.P5 application and nothing happened in the office of the Accused Officer. For the conversion of commercial electrical service connection from the commercial category to the domestic category, the Accused

Officer never demanded any bribe. Accordingly, P.W.1’s alleged visit to the 37 office of the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 seems to be doubtful and there was no proposal for demand from the Accused Officer. In view of the admission of

P.W.1 about his business at Dwarapudi and Tuesday as a weekly holiday, the visit of P.W.1 to the office of the Accused Officer on all the dates mentioned in

Report/Ex.P6 and 161 Cr.P.C. Statement are doubtful since 08.10.2010 was

Friday, 27.10.2010 was Wednesday, 26.11.2010 was Friday and 27.11.2010 was Saturday. Moreover, P.W.2/father of P.W.1 also did not support the evidence of P.W.1 about his visit to the office of the Accused Officer except on 27.11.2010. 

The initial demand by the Accused Officer for a bribe of Rs.64,000/­ in the month of October when he visited the house is also suspicious since the evidence of P.W.1 in cross­examination shows that at the time of the visit, he was alone present at the house and his family members were not there. The said evidence of P.W.1 is not specific about the date or day. In the case of

P.W.1, he gets a holiday on Tuesdays for his business carried at Dwarapudi, the presence of P.W.1 at the residence is doubtful. Further, the evidence of

P.W.1 claiming that at the time of the visit of the Accused Officer, all the family members were absent, is vague and in these circumstances the evidence of

P.W.1 needs corroboration. 

26.P.W.2 in his chief examination deposed that in the month of October 2010, he applied for four service connections/Exs.P1 to P4. P.W.1 took him to the office and he submitted applications/Exs.P1 to P4. P.W.1 informed him that the concerned Electrical Engineer demanded a bribe of Rs.64,000/­ in total like Rs.16,000/­ per connection. On 26.11.2010, they returned from

Sabarimala and came to know about the visit of the Electrical Engineer and insisted on their visit to the office. On 27.11.2010, he along with P.W.1 met the

Accused Officer and there the Accused Officer demanded Rs.64,000/­ for four 38 electrical connections. On their request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­. Then they approached the ACB

Police. 

In cross­examination, P.W.2 deposed as follows:

“I applied for electricity connection covered under Ex.P1 to P.4 at

Call centre/ Mee seva, on my own accord without influence of anybody…………. The Accused Officer himself approached me in first week of October, 2010 and inspected house and advised me to come to office on the next day. On the next day myself and PW.1 went to the office of Accused Officer around 3:30 PM. After four days, again myself and PW.1 went to the office of accused officer around 6:00 PM. Third time I along with my son/PW.1 went to the office of accused officer in the month of October only and subsequently I never went to the office of accused officer. After handing over the applications Ex.P1 to P.4, I have not seen the documents Ex.P1 to P.4. I have not seen Ex.P5.”

The above evidence of P.W.2 in chief examination categorically shows that he came to know about the demands for bribes through P.W.1 only. The evidence of P.W.2 further shows that for the first time, he met the Accused

Officer on 27.11.2010 only. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 never met the Accused

Officer on 26.11.2010 and said evidence of P.W.2 does not show any material about alleged demands made by the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 for a bribe and on their request, the Accused Officer allegedly reduced the bribe amount of

Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 specifically shows that all the incidents of meeting the Accused Officer by them and reducing the bribe amount from Rs.64,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­ on 27.11.2010 that itself contradictory to his 161 Cr. P.C. Statement and also Report/Ex.P6.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.2 does not propose any demand for a bribe by the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010. The above cross­examination of P.W.2 39 categorically shows that they applied for four service connections on their own accord i.e., without the advice of anybody, particularly the Accused Officer.

Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 about placing applications/Exs.P3 and P4 on the advice of the Accused Officer, is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2.

Further, the evidence of P.W.2 during the cross­examination that the Accused

Officer inspected the house and advised P.W.1 and P.W.2 come to the office on the next day is new and improved version. 

P.W.3/daughter­in­law of P.W.2 and P.W.4/son of P.W.2 deposed that they came to know about the demand for a bribe for providing electrical service and the Accused Officer demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/­ in the month of

October 2010. They further deposed that they applied for the first and second floors and two connections on each floor. P.W.3 deposed about visit building by the Accused Officer on 23.10.2010. In the cross­examination, P.W.3 deposed that she could not identify four persons who visited the house for inspection.

P.W.4 deposed in the cross­examination that he came to know about the demand on the evening of 27.11.2010. Though P.Ws.3 and 4 were deposed in support of the prosecution case, there are no eyewitnesses for the demand, but they came to know about the alleged demand. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 no way helpful to the prosecution case except for the alleged visit of the

Accused Officer on 23.10.2010. 

27.With the discussion made above, it is clear that though P.W.1 deposed in chief in support of the prosecution case, his evidence during the cross­ examination about his visit to the office of the Accused Officer on 26.11.2010 is doubtful and further such evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by P.W.2.

Further, the evidence of P.W.1 about the meeting of the Accused Officer on 27.11.2010 for processing the applications/Exs.P1 and P2 as to hand over at call centre also doubtful due to his evidence in cross examination about his 40 business holiday was Tuesday but 27.11.2010 was Saturday. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is also not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 on several counts. With this discussion, I hold that prior demands for bribes by the

Accused Officer are not beyond suspicion.

II. DEMAND DURING THE TRAP:

28.As per the prosecution, the trap was held on 29.11.2010. As part of the trap, the P.Ws.1 and 2 initially went into the office of the Accused Officer and found an absence of the Accused Officer and then all the trap team including

P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the residence of the Accused Officer. Then both P.W.1 and 2 went into the house of the Accused Officer and there P.W.1, in the presence of P.W.2, gave the bribe amount on the alleged demand of the

Accused Officer.

 29.P.W.1 in his examination in chief deposed that after completion of pre­ trap proceedings under Ex.P20 at 5.15 p.m., they started at 5.30 p.m. and reached the office of the Accused Officer at 5.50 p.m. On the instructions of

DSP, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went into the office of the Accused Officer and informed that the Accused Officer had gone away and they cannot say whether the Accused Officer returned or not. Then the trap team left there at 6.20 p.m.

and reached the apartment of the Accused Officer at 6.45 p.m. On the instructions of DSP/P.W.14, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the house and returned after fifteen minutes. Soon after entering the house, the Accused

Officer asked them whether they brought the bribe amount demanded by him.

Then P.W.1 gave the amount and the Accused Officer received the amount and counted with both hands further, the Accused Officer assured that an electrical service connection would be provided. Then they came out from the house and gave the pre­arranged signal. 

41

In the cross­examination, P.W.1 deposed as follows:

“I telephoned to the accused officer at once but I have not mentioned the same in my report on any police record. I do not remember telephone number of the accused officer. I have not noted the phone number of the accused officer at any point of time. I do not know the details of residence of Accused Officer. I entered into the office room of accused officer at 5:50 PM on 29.11.2010 and spend there for 15 minutes approximately. ACB, DSP or Inspector have not verified my mobile phone. I entered into the house of accused officer around 7:15 PM and spend there for 15 minutes. After getting down from the vehicle at 6:45 

PM, I directly went to the house of accused officer. Accused Officer came to us after 10 minutes of our presence in the hall. We sat in sofa set.

Family members of the accused officer were present in the house. It is true that, there are sofa sets, chairs and teapai were in the hall where we were sitting. The Accused Officer occupied the chair in front of us and in between there was a teapai on one side of us. It is true that the accused officer questioned us initially that why we came to his house. ACB Police held search in the house of Accused officer from 7:30 PM. I do not know from where the ACB Police seized the amount in the house of accused officer. We gave bribe amount after 10 minutes of entering into the house of accused officer. After opening the door by accused officer, accused officer went inside the house and returned within 10 minutes.

The accused officer has not demanded for bribe after opening the door and returning to the hall from inside the house after 10 minutes. I stated in 164 Cr. PC statement that soon after door was opened by the accused officer, accused officer questioned the reason to come to his house and we replied as we came there to pay bribe amount for providing electricity connection and accused officer received Rs.40,000/­ and counted the same.”

P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines of P.W.1. P.W.2 in his cross­ examination deposed as follows:

“Myself and my son went into the house of accused officer by 7:00 

PM. Accused opened the door and allowed us to occupy the chair and  42 then he went inside the house and thereafter he came to us and then we gave amount.” 

30.Regarding the opening of the door and the amount, the relatives of the

Accused Officer i.e., P.W.5/brother­in­law and P.W.6/sister­in­law of the

Accused Officer deposed that wife of the Accused Officer opened the door and then two persons came in and enquired the Accused Officer about electrical meter issue and then the Accused Officer replied that work of two persons was already over and in the meanwhile both the persons kept the amount on teapoi and the Accused Officer questioned the attitude of the persons and informed them to take away the amount, but both the persons left the place. As P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case, they were cross­examined by Spl.

P.P. and nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking their 161 Cr. PC. Statements as Exs.P7 and P8. Accordingly, both P.Ws.5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case. Though P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed that wife of the Accused Officer opened the door and the P.Ws.1 and 2 left the amount on the teapoi against the wishes of the Accused Officer, the said evidence of

P.Ws.5 and 6 is contrary to their respective 161 Cr. PC Statements. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 only remains to prove the demand by the Accused

Officer.

31.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 produced above consistently disclose the demand by the Accused Officer and receipt of the bribe. But, the contents of the report about intimation by the Accused Officer to pay the bribe amount at his residence on 29.11.2010 mentioned in FIR seems to be doubtful. As per the report/Ex.P6, the Accused Officer allegedly informed P.Ws.1 and 2 to pay a bribe at his office or at the residence in the evening on 29.11.2010. The evidence of P.W.2/father of P.W.1, P.W.12/mediator and P.W.14/Investigating

Officer also show that initially P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office and found that 43 the Accused Officer was not there and then proceeded to the residence. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that on the instructions of the DSP, he made a call to the Accused Officer and the Accused Officer instructed him to come to his house. P.W.2 also deposed in support of the evidence of P.W.1, but

P.W.12/mediator and P.W.14/Investigating Officer did not depose about making a call by P.W.1 to the Accused Officer and the Accused Officer invited into his residence. In the cross­examination, P.W.1 claimed about making a call and his failure to mention it in the report. He further deposed that he does not remember the telephone number of the Accused Officer and he has not noted the phone number of the Accused Officer at any time. But P.W.2 in the cross­examination deposed that they never made a call to the Accused Officer over the phone. Accordingly, P.W.2 deposed dual versions in chief and cross­ examination. The said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about making a call to the

Accused Officer was also not found in Mediators Report No. II/Ex.P22.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 about making a call to the Accused Officer to reach his residence and the Accused Officer inviting P.W.1 to their residence is contrary to the 161 Cr. PC. Statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the same is not supported by Ex.P23. Further, P.W.5 being the brother­in­law of the

Accused Officer in his evidence specifically deposed that he was on leave and came to the house of the Accused Officer to attend Barasala (Naming

Ceremony) on 29.11.2010, hence there was a function in the house of the

Accused Officer. 

Further, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 during cross­examination specifically shows that the Accused Officer opened the door and allowed them to occupy the sofa and subsequently enquired them why P.Ws.1 and 2 came to their house. P.W.1 during his cross­examination categorically deposed that the

Accused Officer cannot identify them and the Accused Officer does not know 44 the housing locality of P.Ws.1 and 2 etc., If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they came to the house of the Accused Officer after consent of the Accused

Officer over the telephone, is true, there is no need for the Accused Officer to enquire them that why they came to the house. With this discussion, I hold that the contents of FIR informing P.Ws.1 and 2 to pay a bribe at a residence on 29.11.2010 is suspicious. Consequently, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about payment of the bribe amount to the Accused Officer on demand at the residence is also doubtful. However, the recovery of the proposed bribe amount from the house of the Accused Officer after holding the chemical test on both hands of the Accused Officer can be said as proved without any doubt.

Further, the P.Ws.1 and 2 are the interested persons and his entitlement for four electrical service connections is also suspicious and the same will be discussed under the head of Pending Official Favour.

Pending Official Favour:

32.As per the prosecution case, after completion of the trap at the residence of the Accused Officer, the Investigating Officer, Mediators and the Accused

Officer went to the office of the Accused Officer at 6.30 a.m. There they seized the records from the custody of the Accused Officer. Subsequently, the

Investigating Officer secured the presence of P.W.7 and ascertained the duties of the Accused Officer and whether the Accused Officer was entitled to collect the cash. Then the Investigating Officer secured the presence of P.W.9/ADE,

Call Center secured the registers and seized the same. Accordingly, all the records were seized by securing through P.W.9 under the cover of Mediator

Report No. III/Ex.P25 dated 30.11.2010. In these circumstances, I am inclined to discuss the Mediator Report No. III/Ex.P25.

45

(a) Mediator Report No.III/ Ex.P25

Brief contents of the report are that after completion of trap proceedings at the house of the Accused Officer under Mediators Report No.II/Ex.P23 at 6.00 a.m. on 30.11.2010, for securing records of the complainant, ACB staff and mediators/P.W.12 and L.W.16 and Accused Officer went to the office of the

Accused Officer. There the Accused Officer produced records before DSP. 

1. Ex.P24/Inspection notes of the Accused Officer do not disclose any particulars of defacto complainant.

2. Two sets of applications of defacto complainant i.e., Exs.P1 and 

P2 and a letter dated 26.11.2010 signed by A.E./Ex.P5 to reissue meters pertaining to Exs.P1 and P2.

Inspector/B.Ramakrishna was instructed to secure ADE, Call

Center with records. On phone intimation of DSP, N.Samuel/P.W.7 present there and gave information about the procedure for issue of new service connection and further informed that the Accused Officer is not empowered to collect the amount except matters related to

Indiramma House Schemes. P.W.7 verified the files relating to Exs.P1 and P2 and stated that the Accused Officer cannot entertained any cash transactions.

At 9.00 a.m. P.W.9 by name S.Narayana Rao/ADE Call center present there and produced (1) two applications of P.W.2 i.e., Exs.P3 and

P4 and the same were returned to call center on 06.11.2010 by the

Accused Officer with his letter dated 04.11.2010/Ex.P10 rejecting them due to non­availability of consumer. 

(2) D7 meter reissue register/Ex.P11 which includes the entries

dated 08.10.2010/Ex.P14, 27.10.2010/Ex.P12 and 26.11.2010/Ex.P15.

(3) Made up file containing prints obtained from online/Ex.P13.

The DSP/P.W.14 seized all the above records under cover of Mediators

Report and concluded at 11.00 a.m. on 30.11.2010.

46

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined

P.W.8 and recorded 161 Cr. PC. Statement to prove that she prepared a letter/Ex.P5 for reissue of Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.10 was also examined by the

Investigating Officer to prov the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at call center with

Exs.P1, P2 and P5.

33.In support of the contents of the Mediator Report, P.W.7 deposed that the Accused Officer is not empowered to collect the amounts except for the

Indiramma Housing Scheme. His evidence further shows that he perused

Exs.P1 and P2 and stated that the Accused Officer shall not entertain cash transactions. P.W.9 also deposed about the production of all the documents i.e., two electricity connections/Ex.P3 and P4 and endorsement therein, D7 reissue register/Ex.P11 and made up file/Ex.P13. P.W.9 further deposed in detail about the letter/Ex.P10 and endorsed in the D7 register i.e., Exs.P14,

P12, P15 and P.30. P.W.12/Mediator and P.W.14/Investigating Officer also deposed consistent with the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 to prove the contents of

Mediator Report No. III/Ex.P25. At this stage I feel it is necessary to discuss all the records seized under Ex.P25.

34.The Exs.P1 to P4/applications of P.W.2 are voluminous, hence, contents of each exhibit and enclosures are discussed in a table form in order to avoid confusion. 

(a)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Ex.P1/ApplicationReissueCertificate issued byCertificate of entriesVillage Secretary onVenkata Form for Service

dated06.10.10Jagadeeswara

No.73042 applied on 26.11.10No objection to giveElectrical Works 08.10.10 to the house electrical service newIssued on No.3­1192 by Anem connection to the11.09.10 as Veerabhadra Rao 47 third block of theelectrical work is house.completed Ex.P2/ApplicationTest report of APEPDCL for NSC No.73043­ PCB Form for Service ­do­­do­­do­ datedNo.21545 dt.08.10.10. It does No.73043 applied on 10.09.10not contain the signatures of 08.10.10 to the house anybody No.3­1192 by Anem Veerabhadra Rao Ex.P3/ApplicationCertificate issuedTest report of APEPDCL for by Sri SaiPCB No.21545 dt.08.10.10. It Form for Service ­­­NoElectrical Worksdoes not contain the No.73517 applied on

dated 11.10.10 assignatures of anybody

27.10.10 to the house electrical work is No.3­1192 by Anem completed Veerabhadra Rao Ex.P4/ApplicationBlank Test report of APEPDCL Form for Service & No.73518 applied on ­­­­do­ 27.10.10 to the house No Proceedings of Gram No.3­1192 by Anem Panchayat Secretary, Veerabhadra Rao Hukumpeta, BLR No.122/2009­10 dated15.12.09. Permission Accorded for construction of House No.3­1192 for RCC Roof of Ground, 1st and 2nd floor residential building enclosed with building plan. Note: below

All Exs.P1 to P4 are having enclosures xerox voter ID of Anem

Veera Bhadra Rao and xerox sale deed dated 10.11.2008 stands in the name of Anem Veera Bhadra Rao.

Note: Building plan shows three floors. All the floors faces towards East and stair case is situated on East of each floor. Each Floor consists one living room, one bed room, two toilets, one dining and one kitchen only.

(b) Ex.P5 Letter addressed by A.E. i.e., Accused Officer, to A.D.E. dated 26.11.2010 with a request to reissue for service of Exs.P1 and P2. A.D.E. and another signed on 26.11.2010.

48

(c) Ex.P10 Letter addressed by A.E. i.e., Accused Officer, to A.D.E. dated 24.11.2010 the service applications of Exs.P3 and P4 are returned as customer not available.

(d) Ex.P11 D7 issue Register from dated 05.10.2010. Ex.P11 contains Exs.P12,

P14 and P15. Ex.P14 is two entries dated 08.10.2010 about the receipt of applications/Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P12 is two entries dated 27.10.2010 about the receipt of applications/Exs.P3 and P4. Ex.P15 is two entries dated 26.11.2010 about reissue of applications/Exs.P1 and P2.

(e) Ex.P13 is printed copies of online entries with seven pages and all the pages were printed on 30.11.2010. Page 1 and 2 show about receipt of applications i.e., Ex.P1 and P2 on 08.10.2010 and the same were rejected on the grounds that information furnished by applicant is found incorrect. Page 3 and 4 show about receipt of applications i.e., Ex.P3 and P4 on 27.10.2010 and the same were rejected on the grounds that information furnished by applicant is found incorrect. Page 5 and 6 show about applications i.e., Ex.P3 and P4 on 27.10.2010 and the same were rejected on 18.11.2010 as customer was not available in the premises and informed the applicant for reissue.

Page No.7 show about application i.e., Ex.P2 on 08.10.2010 and the same was rejected on the grounds that service installation/service wire erection not complete and applicant is requested to attend above remarks.

35.Counsel for the defence mainly argued that the application for electricity service connection was applied online at a call centre. All the applications/Exs.P3 and P4 were already rejected and not pending for anybody. Though Exs.P1 and P2 are alleged to have been recovered from the

Accused Officer, it cannot be said that Exs.P1 and P2 have to be processed by the Accused Officer since the parties are bound to apply online afresh. In these 49 circumstances, Exs.P1 to P4 are not the records to come to the conclusion that pending official favour is with the Accused Officer. Special Public Prosecutor argued contra and submitted that Exs.P1 and P2 were found in the possession of the Accused Officer. Hence, the prosecution has proved pending official favour is with the Accused Officer.

36.Regarding applying for electrical service connection through online, the prosecution examined Electricity department persons P.Ws.7, 9 and 11. All the witnesses P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 during the cross­examination deposed that everybody has to apply online only. All the witnesses further deposed that one electrical service connection must be provided for one kitchen as per the rule.

The procedure applied for electrical service connection P.W.9 in his cross­ examination deposed in detail and the same is produced as follows:

“It is true that every consumer has to apply through online only at call centre for consumer electricity connection meter. It is true that the entries of all the process of providing service connection, is done through online only and the party did not approach any electricity officials. It is true that all the employees shall attend the work within the time bound only. Electricity service connection shall be completed within a period of 7 days only subject to the compliance of our rules by the consumer. Generally, one meter is provided for one kitchen as per rule.

It is true that for providing electricity connection, construction work of the particular house shall be completed. It is true that electricity connection applications can be returned by Asst. Engineer when construction is not completed and consumer is not available and also with other remarks.

Generally, party can apply within 30 days through online with the old returned applications and once 30 days time is expired the party has to apply with new applications only and in all the circumstances, the status of the applications can be seen on the display of the system operated by 

A.P.E.P.D.C.L. As a rule, the consumer has to make a call if he has any grievance. Ex.P1 and P.2 applications were also rejected on 19.10.2010, as per letter dated 19.10.2010 addressed by A.E/Accused Officer. The  50 letter dated 19.10.2010 sent by the Accused Officer is marked as

Ex.P16. I received Ex.P16 and I signed on 21.10.2010. Ex.P13 ( total 7 in number) online copies relating to Ex.P1 and P.4 were copied through online on 30.11.2010 i.e. after completion of the trap. It is true that there was no requisition from the party for revival the application Ex.P1 to P.4 through online, as per Ex.P13. It is true that as per Ex.P13, there was no pending official work relating to Ex.P1 to P.4 and also before me and the 

Accused Officer. All the electricity meter connection applications shall be processed through online only but not offline. Ex.P5 does not contain my signature. For the first time I observed Ex.P5 before this court. I have no personal knowledge about Ex.P5. I have not stated anything about Ex.P5 to the police in my 161 Cr. P.C statement. It is true that Ex.P11 does not containing my hand writing and my signature.”

37.On perusal of the documentary evidence/ Exs.P1 to P5, P10, P11 to P15 and the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 about the procedure to be followed. I am of the view that the applications/ Exs.P1 to P4 filed by P.W.1 on behalf of

P.W.2 are defective and they have no eligibility to apply for two electrical service connections for each floor. Further, P.W.7 also deposed in the cross­ examination as they provided only two service connections after one month of the trap by securing new applications online. P.Ws.1 and 2 are not entitled to four service connections Exs.P1 to P4 are defective and Exs.P10 to 12 and 14 and 15 are undisputed with the following grounds:

1) Ex.P4 application is enclosed with the building plan. The building plan shows only three floors i.e., first block/ground floor, second block/first floor and third block/second floor. The plan further shows that each floor has one bedroom and one kitchen. As per the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 disclosed the parties are entitled to one electrical service connection for each block/floor.

2) Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., application numbers 73042 and 73043 respectively accompanied by a certificate issued by Village Secretary dt.6.10.2010. The said 51 certificate of the Village Secretary discloses that they have no objection to giving electrical service connection for the third block i.e., the second floor. An interesting issue is that all the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the Investigating

Officer show that Exs.P1 and P2 applications are meant for electrical service connection for the first floor only i.e., the second block. But the certificate issued by the Village Secretary show third block and it does not pertain to the second block/first floor. Accordingly, except oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about first floor, there is no supporting evidence. Hence, Exs.P1 and P2 are not supported by the proper certificate of the Village Secretary. In view of the certificate of Village Secretary dt.6.10.2010, the applications/Exs.P1 and P2 are defective.

3) As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.P1 and P2 applications are first floor only. In view of the building plan enclosed to Ex.P4, it is clear that there is only one bedroom and one kitchen and accordingly he is entitled to one service connection, but P.Ws.1 and 2 applied for two service connections for one floor hence it is against the rules and further, those applications are not proper and supported by Village Secretary certificate. With the reasons discussed, I am of the view that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not entitled to two service connections for one floor and accordingly, the claim under Exs.P1 and P2 are defective.

4) The applications/Exs.P3 and P4 bearing Nos.73517 and 73518 are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 show that they applied for service connection for the second floor. But these applications are not supported by any certificate of Village Secretary. When the P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed and claimed that Exs.P3 and P4 applications were meant for electrical service connection for the second floor i.e., the third block as per the building plan, these two applications became defective on the ground that the Village 52

Secretary certificate issued no objection for third block only enclosed to applications/Exs.P1 and P2. Similarly, the applications Exs.P1 and P2 can be treated as defective in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied by a

VRA certificate that Ex.P3 and P4 are meant for the second floor. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about Exs.P3 and P4 for second floor, is oral only and it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

5) In view of the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 that one service connection for one kitchen as per rule and building plan enclosed to Ex.P4 application and one kitchen for one floor, these applications/Exs.P3 and P4 also become defective.

6) Though the prosecution marked Ex.P5 letter signed by the Accused

Officer and elicited about the process of reissue, P.W.8 is said to have prepared

Ex.P5 at the office of the Accused Officer, deposed about the preparation of

Ex.P5 on the request of a lineman only and accordingly, she turned hostile and she further deposed that she cannot identify the Accused Officer by name

Malaki. Accordingly, P.W.5 turned hostile. Similarly, P.W.10 is said to have received Exs.P1 and P2 along with letter/Ex.P5 through P.Ws.1 and 2 on 27.11.2010, deposed identifying her signature on Ex.P5 and further deposed that she has not received under Exs.P1 and P2 and she does not know the

Accused Officer and call centre ADE i.e., P.W.9 since she was new to the department. Accordingly, she turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

In view of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of report/Ex.P6 that both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the call centre with Exs.P1 and P2 on 27.10.2010. 

7)As per Ex.P13 consisting of seven pages, Exs.P1 and P2 were already rejected on the ground that information was found incorrect. Further 53 pages 3 and 4 show that Exs.P3 and P4 were already rejected on the ground that the information furnished was found incorrect and they were rejected on 18.11.2010 as a customer was not available on the premises as per pages 5 and 6. Similarly, as per Page 7, Ex.P2 was also rejected on the ground that service wire erection was not completed. Accordingly, all pages 1 to 7 of Ex.P13 categorically show that the work of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not pending at the call centre, As per the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 discussed above, all the processes shall be through online only. When the documentary evidence

Ex.P13 of call centre show that no application of P.Ws.1 and 2 were pending for compliance, it cannot be said that there was pending official favour with the

Accused Officer.

As per the building plan enclosed to Ex.P4 there was one kitchen and one bedroom for each floor, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and his father/P.W.2 are not entitled to two service connections for each floor. But all the applications/Exs, P1 to P4 of P.Ws.1 and 2 are against the rules and defective. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 can not be relied on for all purposes. 

38.In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden to prove demand and acceptance and pending official favour beyond suspicion, hence, the application of legal presumption under section 20 of The Prevention of

Corruption Act does not arise and accordingly, rebuttal on behalf of the

Accused Officer also does not arise.

39.With the discussion made above, this Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the Accused

Officer and further pending official favour with the Accused Officer, for the offences under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 54 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused Officer is liable to be acquitted.

40.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 248(1) Cr. PC.

The bail bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.5/tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­ is confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. 

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 4 th day of April 2024.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1: Anem Umamaheswara Rao/Defacto complainant P.W.2: Anem Veerabhadra Rao/Father of P.W.1 P.W.3: Anem Kanaka Mahalakshmi/Sister­in­law of P.W.2 P.W.4: Anem Ashok/Son of P.W.2 P.W.5: Dr. Nokki Rujzvait Ratna Kumar/Brother­in­law of Accused Officer P.W.6: Mary Florence/Sister of Accused Officer P.W.7: Nakkapalli Samuel, ADE Operations, Town­II, Rajajmundry/Colleague of Accused Officer P.W.8: Kolamuri Lakshmi Kumari/ the then outsourcing computer operator P.W.9: Satyawada Narayana Rao, D.E. Meters and Protection, Eluru P.W.10: Addepalli Sakunthala

P.W.11: K.Satyanarayana Murthy, Retired Chief General Manager, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam P.W.12: Gajji Satyanarayana, Retired Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Rajahmundry P.W.13: Vipparthi Vijaya Lalitha, Chief General Manager, Operations, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam/Sanction Proceedings P.W.14: Ch.Srirama Chandra Rao, Retired Addl. S.P./Investigating Officer 55

P.W.15: S.Murali Mohan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Disha Police Station, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District P.W.16: B.Rajasekhar Rao, Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Konaseema District/Filing charge sheet

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Application for New Service Connection to 73042 along with enclosures Ex.P2: Application for New Service Connection to 73043 along with enclosures Ex.P3: Application for New Service Connection to 73517 along with enclosures Ex.P4: Application for New Service Connection to 73518 along with enclosures Ex.P5: Letter addressed to ADE by AE Operation D7, APEPDCL, Rajahmundry Ex.P6: Report given by P.W.1 to DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry

Ex.P7: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.5

Ex.P8: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.6

Ex.P9: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.8

Ex.P10: Letter dated 04.11.2010

Ex.P11: Meter Issuing Register

Ex.P12: Relevant entries in Page No.11

Ex.P13: Online copies of applications

Ex.P14: Relevant entries in Page Nos.5 and 6 of Ex.P11

Ex.P15: Relevant entries in Page No.27 of Ex.P11

Ex.P16: Letter dated 19.10.2010 signed by Accused Officer

Ex.P17: 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.10

Ex.P18: Service particulars of Accused Officer

Ex.P19: Copy of First Information Report

Ex.P20: Mediators Report No.I

Ex.P21: Personal Diary of the Accused Officer

Ex.P22: Rough Sketch

Ex.P23: Mediators Report No.II

Ex.P24: Inspection Register of the Accused Officer

Ex.P25: Mediators Report No.III

Ex.P26: Authorization Letter 56

Ex.P27: Sanction Proceedings dated 17.07.2012

Ex.P28: Copy of EOO Ms. No.192 dated 27.08.2005

Ex.P29: Original First Information Report

Ex.P30: Search List

Ex.P31: Explanation of the Accused Officer

Ex.P32: Memorandum issued by DG to P.W.15

Documents marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1:Entire Copy of Attendance and Salary Certificate of P.W.5 (marked from cross of P.W.5)

Ex.D2:Copy of model sanction order along with letter dated 22.07.2011 (marked from cross of P.W.13)

Material Objects

M.O.No.1: Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder

M.O.No.2: Sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder

M.O.No.3: Resultant solution of Right hand of Accused Officer

M.O.No.4: Resultant solution of Left hand of Accused Officer

M.O.No.5: Tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­

M.O.No.6: Pink colour solution bottle

M.O.No.7: Pink colour solution bottle on wearing pant 

M.O.No.8: Night pant of Accused Officer

M.O.No.9: Sample of sodium carbonate powder in Mediators Report No.II

Special Judge 

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajamahendravaram 57

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 

Calendar of Case tried by the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Calendar Case No.90/2018

Dates of:

OccurrenceComplaintApprehensionCommencementClosure ofSentence of accusedof trialtrial 29.11.201029.11.201029.11.201013.05.202223.01.202404.04.2024

Name of the Complainant: The State Represented by District Inspector, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

Name of the Accused: Katru Malaki, S/o: Nagaraju, Age 34 years, Assistant Engineer (Operations), D­7 Section, APEPDCL, Satellite City, Rajahmundry, R/o: Flat No.501, Bathula Enclave, Gandhipuram­2, Rajahmundry.

Offence: U/Secs. Sec.7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty

Judgment Pronounced: 04.04.2024

Explanation for Delay:

The record in C.C.No.2/2013 was received by transfer from Special

Judge, SPE & ACB Court, Vijayawada as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh 58 in G.O.Ms.No.131 Home (Courts­A) Department, dated 02.12.2016 and

ROC.No.109/E1/07 dt:07.12.2017 and the same is renumbered as

C.C.No.90/2018 on the file of this Court in the month of May, 2018. Notice was issued to both sides. Thereafter the Accused Officer made his appearance on 20.07.2018. Thereafter matter was heard and Judgment is pronounced on 04.04.2024.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 248(1) Cr. PC. The bail bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.5/tainted amount of Rs.40,000/­ is confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. 

Special Judge 

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajamahendravaram

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1) The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram.

2) The Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri U.U.Prasad

Special Judge for the trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, 26th day of March 2024

Calendar Case No.3/2018

Between:-

The State Represented by Range Inspector-I, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram

East Godavari District. ... Complainant.

AND

1. Kothapalli Bala Subrahmanyam, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 36 years, D.No.36-21-11, Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Leader of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

2. Mullapudi Srinivas, S/o Babaji, Age 45 years, D.No.79-16-11, Srilakshmi Venkateswara Nilayam, Opp. Street of Madhavi Nursing Home, Tilak Road, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Accountant of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

3. Meka Narasimha Rao, S/o Muaslayya, Age 57 years, Flat No.2, First Floor, Sri Kalyani Apartments, , Koka Bhaskaramma Street, A.V. Apparao Road, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Partner of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

4. Billa Radha Kishan, Proh & Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry South, Rajahmundry, E.G. District … Accused

This case has come up on 20.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State-Complainant and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate

for Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ch. Venkateswarlu and Sri K.Hemanth Srinivas, Advocates for

Accused No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Range Inspector-I, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.2/RCO-RJY/2012 charged U/Sec.8, 12 & 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120-B, 34 & 109 of Indian Penal Code r/w Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)&(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 stating that in this case Accused Nos.1 and 3 are the partners of Balu Liquor Syndicate consisting 13 wine shops and Accused No.2 is the 2 accountant in the said office. Accused No.4 is the Prohibition and Excise Inspector of

Rajahmundry within his jurisdiction the wine shops and the syndicate office are situated.

Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired among themselves with Accused No.4 and with the consent of

Accused No.4, Accused Nos.1 to 3 formed themselves into a syndicate and ran the wine shops violating the A.P. Excise Rules i.e., MRP rates and selling cheap liquor, maintaining illegal belt shops and not maintaining prescribed timings and sell loose liquor for consumption. Further, they developed illegal nexus with the Excise Officials, Police and others; to make illegal liquor business. As per the records seized in the syndicate office, the Excise Officials received bribe of

Rs.4,24,200/-, Police Officials received Rs.28,982/- and APBCL Depot received Rs.11,000/- and others received Rs.14,350/- and accordingly, Accused Officer No.4 being public servant abused his official position by resorting to corrupt and illegal means and received total bribe amount of

Rs.88,500/- as illegal gratification from Balu Liquor Syndicate.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that Accused No.1 is a resident of

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, running the Balu Liquor Syndicate and he is the leader of the Balu Liquor Syndicate for the Excise lease year from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012. Accused

No.2 is a resident of Rajahmundry and he is the accountant working in Balu Liquor Syndicate.

Accused No.3 is a resident of Rajahmundry and he is a partner in Balu Liquor Syndicate and also running his own syndicate consisting of five wine shops (Teja Syndicate). Accused No.4 has been working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector (SHO) of the Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajahmundry South, East Godavari District since 27.12.2010 and he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.On credible information, a surprise check was conducted in Karimnagar Town on 13.12.2011 by intercepting a TATA Vista Vehicle to the officials of the Excise Department and an amount of Rs.3,62,640/- was recovered and seized under cover of panchanama by the ACB

Officials in the presence of mediators. As the amount was suspected to be the amount collected towards a bribe for favouring the owners of the wine shops, a case in Cr. No.15/RCO-KNR/2011 was registered on 14.12.2011 U/Sec.13(1)(a)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Sec.34, 120-B IPC and Sec.41(1)(a) & 102 Cr. P.C. against the Excise Officials. At the request of

DSP, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad, the DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry conducted searches on 16.12.2011 at the liquor syndicate office being run under the leadership of Accused No.1 and the searches were conducted in the presence of mediators and seized documents about the illegal amount that was paid to public servants on different dates during the period from June 2011 to 30.11.2011 under cover of Mediators Report.

4.The leader/partner of the Balu Liquor Syndicate who is running 13 wine shops in and around Rajahmundry on behalf of their binamis, formed themselves into an informal association/syndicate and A1 was designated as the leader, A3 is the partner of the said syndicate and A2 is employed as an accountant in the said syndicate and he is maintained the seized 3 records. The entries disclosed the mamools received by the Excise and Police Officials from the wine shops through the syndicate and the Excise Officials received Rs.4,24,200/- and Police

Department received Rs.28,982/- and the APBCL officials received Rs.11,000/- and others received Rs.14,350/- towards their mamools. The DSP, ACB, and Rajahmundry prepared an occurrence report and after obtaining the necessary permission, registered the occurrence report as a case in Cr. No.2/RCO-RJY/2012 against A1 and others and took up investigation. Based on the seized documents, the DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry arrested A2 on 02.02.2012 and also arrested

A1 on 16.02.2012 and conducted searches at the house of A1 in the presence of mediators and the Investigating Officer arrested A3 on 20.03.2012. The operation of the syndicate is also established from the seized records at the A1 syndicate office, which were maintained concerning 13 wine shops located in and around Rajahmundry. The cell phone incoming and outgoing call records obtained from the network service providers which are in the names of A1 to A3 disclose that all of them are in regular touch with each other.

5.Accused No.4 is allowed irregularities in the five wine shops of Balu Liquor Syndicate and two wine shops of Accused No.3. Accused No.4, being a public servant abused his official position by resorting to corrupt and illegal means, conspired with a common intention with the syndicate leader, partner of the syndicate and syndicate accountant and received total bribe (mamool) amount of Rs.88,500/- as illegal gratification from Accused No.1 to do an official favour of overlooking the contraventions of the Excise Laws and Rules committed by the wine shops of the syndicate. The investigation discloses that A1 is the leader, A3 is the partner and A2 is the accountant of the syndicate as per the pre-arranged plan developed illegal nexus with the officials of Excise, Police and others and paid huge regular mamools to them in order to make an unlawful gain in the liquor business in violation of conditions of licenses, provisions of Excise

Act. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (VIG.V) Department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad accorded Sanction to prosecute Accused No.4 in a Court of Law vide G.O. Ms. No.50

dated 30.01.2013.

6.The case was taken on file punishable U/Secs.8,12,14, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and 109 I.P.C. against the Accused

Nos.1 to 3 and Accused Officer No.4 and summons were served on the Accused. On the appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished to them.

7.The Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein, they denied the commission of offence, whereupon charges U/Secs.109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption

Act and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 14(9) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w the provision under Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2005 against Accused Nos.1 to 4.

4

8.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 74 were examined and Exs.P1 to P114 were marked.

The prosecution has given up the evidence of L.W.2/T.Sriram, L.W.4/K.V.V.Satyanarayana,

L.W.5/Bokka Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, L.W.7/K.Rajendra, L.W.9/Racharla Rajesh,

L.W.11/Dorasetti Srinivasu, L.W.13/Y.Naga Venkata Suresh, L.W.15/Gandham Krishna Rao,

L.W.17/Gopisetti Satyanarayana, L.W.36/Polisetti Satyanarayana, L.W.56/Rathod Kamala Devi,

L.W.66/B.Sudhakar Patnaik, L.W.71/Office Superintendent, L.W.74/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, L.W.75/Deputy Superintendent of Police.

9.On the closure of evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence leveled against them and they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard both sides. Special Public Prosecution argued that the present case has been registered against Accused license holders and Excise inspectors. Accused No.1 being a License holder, has been maintaining a syndicate consisting of 13 shops situated within the territorial limits of Accused No.4/Excise Inspector. Accused No. 1 with the help of other license holders and employees, used to collect amounts and distribute same to the public servants of various departments i.e., Law and Order police and Excise Police etc. to ignore violations of Excise

Laws i.e., sale of liquor exceeding MRP rates, beyond stipulated business hours, allowing the consumers to drink at shops, and illegally maintaining belt shops. During the course of the

Investigation, the Investigating Officer seized relevant records in the presence of the mediators and further secured information from MROs, VROs, the Income Tax department etc., to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamis of A1. Further, the Investigating

Officer examined Nowkarnamas and other witnesses and recorded their statements to prove that

Accused No.1 maintained a syndicate and paid mamools/bribes to the Excise Officials. During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses PW.1 to 74. Though the witnesses i.e.,

Nowkarnamas shop landlords etc., did not support the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer and mediators supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, the prosecution proved its case. In addition to the charges framed against the accused, the Accused is liable for the offence U/Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

11.Counsel for the defence argued that though the investigating officers held such and seized records in the presence of the mediators, none of the records disclosed that Accused No.1 has been running a syndicate office with 13 wine shops. Further, the Nowkarnamas, landlords, and neighbours examined by the prosecution, did not support the prosecution's case but they turned hostile. Though the prosecution examined revenue officials, VROs, Bank Officials, Income Tax

Officials etc., and marked the documents to prove the financial incapacity of other license holders acted as binamis of A1, the evidence of those witnesses and documents do not disclose how the A1 is related to the other alleged binami shops and further that evidence do not prove offence against A1 and Excise Inspector. Similarly, the evidence of revenue officials and VROs 5 to prove the existence of belt shops within the jurisdiction of the Excise Inspector, the cross- examination of those witnesses disclose that the witnesses have not insisted on any criminal action against belt shop owners and accordingly the evidence does not prove the involvement of

Accused No.1 and Excise Inspector. In addition, there is no evidence proving that Excise

Inspector/A4 received bribes from Accused No.1 for allowing them to maintain the syndicate and further maintaining wine shops beyond business hours, sale of liquor over the MRP price etc., violating the Excise Laws. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. He relied on the authorities Aghnoo Nagesla vs State of Bihar AIR 1966, 119 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shula and others. AIR 1998 Supreme

Court 1406.

Points for determination:

(I) Whether there had been any liquor syndicate, formed under the leadership of A.1 and A.3 with the assistance of A.4 shop's license holders in Rajahmundry Urban & Rural?

(II) Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co- operation of A.4/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of Indian Penal Code?

(III) Whether A.1 and A.3 together, paid regular mamools through A.2 as illegal gratification to Accused No.4/Excise Inspector and A.4 being a public servant conspired with A.1 to A.3 and collected monthly mamools as illegal gratification from liquor syndicate of A.1 and the prosecution has proved the offence U/Sec. 109 of I.P.C. r/w 13(1)(a) of the Provision of Corruption Act 1988 against A1 to A3 and further proved offence U/Sec.13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A4?

POINT NO.1:

In the instant case, ACB Police, Rajahmundry i.e. DSP/PW.56 along with

Inspector/PW.71 and Mediators/PW.1 and L.W.2 initially searched the office of A.1 which is being called as Syndicate office of Balaji Wines, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry and seized records in the presence of A.2/Accountant under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P8 dated 16.12.2011.

Based on the contents of the mediators' Report and documents seized there under i.e. Exs.P2 to

P.6, the Police prepared a scrutiny report and on the permission of the Joint Director, ACB,

Hyderabad, they registered F.I.R. i.e., Ex.P84 dated 25.01.2012. During the course of the investigation, the police examined A.1 and held a search in his house under several mediators' reports and similarly, police held a search in the house of A.2 and also separately against A.3.

(I) Against Accused No.2:

After securing records under Ex.P8, the Police examined A.2 on 01.02.2012 at ACB

Office, Rajahmundry and recorded his statements under the cover of Ex.P10. In pursuance of 6

Mediators Report under Ex.P10, the ACB Police held a search in the house of A.2 on 02.02.2012 under the cover of mediators Report/Ex.P13. During the course of remand of A.2, the police held interrogation under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P23 dated 16.02.2012.

(a) Ex. P8

During the trial, regarding the initial search prior to the registration of the F.I.R, as per the prosecution case, PW.1 was present along with DSP/PW.56 and Inspector/PW.71 at the time of search and seizure at the Syndicate office of Balaji Wines etc., at D.No.46-19-18/1, Danavaipeta,

Rajahmundry at 1.00 PM on 16.12.2011 in Cr. No.15/RCO-ACB-KNR/2011 under section 13(1)

(d) of PC Act r/w 32, 34 128(b) I.P.C. r/w 41, 102 Cr.P.C of Karimnagar Range under mediators report/Ex.P8.

The evidence of the PW.1 and Mediators Report/Ex.P8 discloses that the shop is situated on the first floor. At the time of the search, M.Srinivas/A.2 being an accountant was present. He received 165 Cr.P.C notices. On enquiry, A.2 produced Exs.P2 to P.5. Except the Ex.P2 to P.5, they have not found any other incriminating material. A.2 stated that the syndicate pertains to 1.

Balaji Wines, 2. Lakshmi Wines, 3. Annapurna wines, 4. Teja Wines, 5. Sivasai wines, 6.

Lakshmi Devasai wines, 7.Devasai Wines and 8. Balaji wines at Seethanagaram.

The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P8 further discloses that on the directions of the owners, they paid bribes Rs.5,500/- per month to the Excise Stations up to C.I, Rs.1,500/- to Excise

Superintendent, Rs.1000/- to A.E.S., Rs.2000/- to ESTF from each shop and Rs.2000/- per month to state task force from each shop and also Rs.4500/- to local police station from each shop.

Local police station constables used to collect the amounts on behalf of the officers. The search proceedings contain the signatures of PW.1, another mediator by the name- Sriram, and of DSP and C.I of ACB.

12.In support of the evidence of PW.1, both PW.56 and 71 were deposed as they were present at the time of the search and they seized the records.

In Cross-Examination PW.1, he failed to state the details of the building and the rooms where the search had taken place. They failed to take identification of A2 as to whether he was related to the establishment and further, there was no syndicate sign board. He failed to disclose the name and details of the syndicate. They have affixed identity slips on Exs.P2 to P6. His

Office attendance register does not disclose his participation in the search under Ex.P8. He denied the suggestion that he never participated in the search and seizure and he signed in Ex.P8 in the ACB Office. Further, he failed to depose from where Ex.P2 to P.4 were recovered. Though

PW.71 stated in chief examination that searches were held on the 1st floor of the building, in further cross-examination, he deposed referring Ex.P8 that searches were held on the 1st floor, 2nd floor and upstairs.

7

In Cross-Examination PW.56/Investigating Officer deposed that no search requisition

U/sec 165 Cr. P.C. was served. He admitted that the place of the search was a closed one and he had not obtained any search warrant from the competent court to conduct the search. Ex.P8 does not disclose who scribed it. No property was recovered based on the alleged confession recorded under Ex.P8. Further, the Exs.P2 to P8 do not disclose references to the Balu liquor syndicate.

PW.71 in cross-examination deposed about not obtaining a search warrant.

13.In view of the evidence of the witnesses PW.1, 56 and 71 and Ex.P8, there is no material evidence to show about the syndicate except the confession of A.2.

(b) FIR/Ex. P84

The evidence of PW.56 further shows that he submitted a brief occurrence report to the

Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad and on their directions he registered F.I.R in Cr. No.2/RCO-

RJY/2012 U/sec.7,8,12,13(1)(a)(d), 13(2) of PC Act r/w 120(b), 109 I.P.C. of ACB on 25.01.2012 and the same is marked as Ex.P84. Ex.P84 contains scrutiny details of Ex.P2 to P.8, under annexures 1 to 4. Later he examined A.2 on 01.02.2012 and recorded his confession statement.

In the cross-examination, PW.56 and 71 deposed that F.I.R was registered after one month of the search held under Ex.P8. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.56 and 71 and

Ex.P8, they held an initial search under Ex.P8 based on the material in Cr. No.15/RCO-

ACB/KNR/2012. Hence it is clear that the crime number of Karimnagar ACB is not related to the search held under Ex.P8. Further, the recitals of Ex.P8 do not disclose any information about the commission of the offence that prompted the police to conduct search and seizure under

Ex.P8.

(c) Ex. P10

During the course of the investigation, the PW.56 arrested A.2 and produced for remand.

At his instance, hand writings of A.2 were obtained in six sheets/Ex.P9 and the same were attested by himself and mediators under the cover of mediators report/Ex.P10.

14.On perusal Mediators Report/Ex.P10, is a computer-typed Mediators Report that consists of 11 pages. It contains the signatures of mediators and ACB Officials. It is written in the ACB

Office, Rajahmundry. It contains the statement of A.2. As per the statement of A.2, A.1 is running a syndicate liquor business pertaining to 13 wine shops located in Rajahmundry Urban and Rural areas. He/A.1 is the licensee of Devasai wines, Tadithota and he was not aware whether he made investments in other shops. All the transactions of wine shops like distribution of stock and mamools were looked after by the syndicate office. It further shows the procedure of handing over the bribe amounts to the other government officials of law & order police, Excise Police,

Taskforce etc. This mediator's report further shows that A.2 also examined the amounts 8 mentioned in the register and he/A.2 stated details of the amounts paid to the several officers including A.4/Billa Radha Krishna, C.I, Excise Station. PW.2 deposed in support of the said above proceedings as he was present.

In cross-examination, PW.2 deposed denying the suggestion that A.2 never confessed anything in his presence. Accordingly, the evidence of PW.2 and other investigating Officers and

Ex.P10 show that there is only a confession of A.2 about the syndicate and paying of mamools to the officials and the same is recorded in the police station.

(d) Ex. P13

PW.56 evidence further show that he issued search proceedings/Ex.P11 U/sec.165 Cr.

P.C. to conduct a search in the house of A.2 and accordingly, PW.71 held a search in the house.

On enquiry, A.2 produced a spiral notebook/Ex.P12 containing the handwriting and signature of

A.2 hence, PW.71 seized the same under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P13 dated 02.02.2012.

PW.2 deposed about holding a search in the house of A.2 under Ex.P13 on 02.02.2012.

Ex.P13 briefly discloses about search held by the ACB police in the house of A.2. There A.2 produced one Spiral notebook containing admitted signatures and hand writings of A.2 and the same relating to liquor and expenditure of his family. The hand writings are in Telugu language.

In cross-examination, PW.2 deposed that he had no knowledge about obtaining a search warrant from the court to search the house of A.2. He further stated that A.2 was in police custody after arrest at the time of the search and no incriminating material was found in the house of A.2. He denied the suggestion that the A.2 never confessed offence in his pre17. Sence and the mediator report is created in police station. PW.74 one of the Investigating Officers deposed as no search warrant was obtained to conduct a search. Further, there is no documentary evidence to show A.2 was the accountant of the syndicate except the confession of A.1 to A.3.

Accordingly, the evidence of PW.2, 56 and 74 discloses that the Investigating Officers failed to secure a search warrant from the court before search in the house of A.2 under Ex.P13. Hence it is clear that the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure of obtaining a search warrant for conducting a search in a closed place.

(e) Ex. P23

Ex.P23/Mediators Report drafted by Inspector in the presence of the mediators PW.5 and another on 16.02.2012 at 12 noon while A.2 was in custody of DSP, ACB, Vijayawada. In the interrogation, A.2 was examined regarding entries i.e. bribes mentioned in table No.4 and he stated that an amount of Rs.1,36,500/- was paid to the excise department @ Rs.10,500/- per month on behalf of 13 wine shops on the directions of A.1 and further some amounts were paid to Dy. Commissioner, Excise and incurring expenditure for arranging a party with an amount of 9

Rs.2,10,800/-. PW.5/Mediator and PW.56/Investigating Officer deposed in support of the

Ex.P23.

During the cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that Ex.P23 did not disclose about oral and written instructions of his higher officials to act as mediators. He admitted that he had not examined A.2 about the commission of the offence and he does not know about the scrutiny report. He further admitted that he was not present at the time of the recording of the confession of A.2 and the contents of the confession. He further admitted that Ex.P23 does not contain recitals that who scribed Ex.P23.

Conclusion: Though PW.5 and Ex.P23 disclose the details given by A.2 recorded under

Ex.P23 regarding amounts paid to the excise officials, the Investigating Officer failed to examine the officers allegedly received amounts except showing A.4. Given the provision Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act, the confession before the police is not admissible in evidence.

(II) Against Accused No.1

During the course of the Investigation, the police prepared the Mediators Report by interrogating A.1 in the ACB Office at 7:30 hrs on 16.02.2012 under the cover of Mediators

Report/Ex.P15 and arrested there. Further, against A.1, the Police held a search in the house of

A.1 under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P21 on 16.02.2012 at 2:00 PM. Later, ACB Police prepared another Mediators Report/Ex.P14 against A.1 at ACB Office around 12 noon on 02.03.2012 in the presence of the mediators while A.1 was in police custody to know entries related to the books.

(a) Ex. P15

During the trial, Under Ex.P15/Mediators report dated 16.02.2012 at 7:30 PM prepared in

ACB Office, Rajahmundry the then Inspector/PW.74 examined A.1 about the entries made in books No.1 to 3 and about the syndicate. A.1 allegedly confessed to forming of syndicate with the agreement of A.3 and other partners, for the liquor shops. It further stated that holding of share in the shop. The entire report discloses details of the excise officials, law and order police and other departments working in and around Rajahmundry town as they received bribes.

Further, he confessed that on his instructions only his accountant/A.2 paid bribes to the officials at Kakinada, Rajahmundry etc., shown in books No.1 to 3 including A.4 herein as A.2 paid

Rs.33,000/- to A.4 as per entries in Page No.47 book No.2. Then A.4 was arrested.

PW.3 deposed about preparing the mediators report and recording version of A.1 and he deposed in support of the contents of Mediators Report and payment of bribes to the officers through A.2 as noted in book Nos.1 to 3 including payment of Rs.33,000/- to the A.4.

PW.74/Investigating Officer deposed similarly.

10

In the cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that Ex.P15 did not disclose his presence at the

ACB Office on oral instructions of his superior officials. In view of the evidence of PW.74, no incriminating material has been recovered in pursuance of the confession recorded under Ex.P15 and he did not mention the reasons for not obtaining a search warrant from the court.

Accordingly, except for the confession of A.1 about the syndicate for several liquor shops and the alleged payment of mamools to the officials through A.2, there is no other material evidence.

Undisputedly, the confession before the police is not admissible in evidence as per provision

Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(b) Ex. P21

Ex.P21/Search Proceedings dated 16.02.2012 at 2:00 PM drafted in the residential premises of A.1. On service of the search found household articles in the house and they did not find any other incriminating material but they seized the Corporation bank account and I.T

Returns of 2011-12 of A.1.

PW.3 had deposed about the preparation of the mediator's report at the time of the search in the house of A.1 and his evidence further discloses the seizure of I.T. Returns for the assessment year 2011-12.

Cross-Examination: PW.3 in his cross-examination deposed as he does not know who prepared the scrutiny report and what the scrutiny report contains and he further admitted that

Ex.P15 does not disclose his presence and oral or written instructions of his superior officials.

Further, the Mediator Report does not disclose that the contents read over to A.1. He admitted that the house was a closed one, and he had no knowledge about the search warrant and A.1 was already in police custody at the time of the search. They did not find any incriminating material in the house search under Ex.P21. PW.74 also deposed that no reasons are mentioned for not obtaining a search warrant from the court. Hence, it is clear that they have not followed the procedure for obtaining a search warrant from the court to conduct a search.

(c) Ex. P14

The evidence of PW.2/Mediator, PW.56/Investigating Officer and Ex.P14 show that in the enquiry held under Mediators report/Ex.P14, A.1 stated that A.3 is his partner and A.3 is having benami shops and also A.3 is surety for some of the shops and the other partners Nageswar Rao and Pullareddy recently joined in the business.

In the cross-examination, PW.2 claimed that they had not verified the identity of A.1 even at the time of search and they denied the suggestion of the defence that A.1 never confessed anything before the police. On perusal of the entire evidence of PW.2 and evidence of other witnesses except the confession of A.3 that A.3 is his partner, there is no other material evidence.

I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of every licensed shop and the evidence of witnesses 11 concerned also do not disclose that A.3 is a partner of A.1 and particularly Balu liquor Syndicate.

Accordingly, except for the confession, there is no other material evidence to prove the liquor syndicate. Admittedly, the confession before the police is not admissible in the evidence.

(III) Against Accused No.3

During the course of the investigation, against A.3, the ACB Police held a search and arrested A.3 in Executive Club, Vijayawada on 20.03.2012 around 10:45 AM under the cover of

Mediators Report/Ex.P22. On the same day around 11:15 hrs, police held a search in the house of

A.3 under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P25 dated 20.03.2012. Again, the police held a search in the house of Meka Srinivas son of A.3 at 2:30 PM on 20.03.2012 under the cover of

Mediators Report/Ex.P27. Later, during the police custody, the ACB Police interrogated A.3 on 04.04.2012 at 4:00 PM under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P28 dated 04.04.2012. Again,

A.3 was interrogated, during remand, on 05.04.2012 at 10:30 AM under the cover of Mediators

Report/Ex.P29. Again, A.3 was interrogated, during remand, by ACB Police at 10:30 AM on 06.04.2012 under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P30.

(a) Ex. P22

15.During the trial, as per the evidence of the PW.4/Mediator and PW.74/the then Inspector and Ex.P22, on information they held a search in room No.313, Executive Club, near Ramesh

Hospital, Vijayawada on 20.03.2012 and found A.3 and arrested him. At that time, A.3 revealed about running two wine shops in the name of his son and three wine shops in the name of Dasari

Prem Kumar and he invested in all these shops. He further stated about payment of mamools to the Excise Officials and law & order police. He further stated that he has several other wine shops under syndicate and he has a share in all these shops. For maintenance of all these shops, a syndicate office is formed and amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16000/- is collected for expenditure of these shops. Mamools were paid to several officers through M.Srinivas/A.2 and accordingly,

A.2 paid an amount of Rs.33,000/- to A.4 and further paid several amounts to several excise officials, law & order police and Excise etc. This report discloses the details of the names of the persons who received bribe amounts through A.2 and other clerks of other shops. PW.4 deposed about holding the search and arrest of A.3 under the cover of Ex.P22.

In cross-examination, PW.74/Investigating Officer deposed that he had not obtained any search warrant from the court for a search in room No.313 of Executive Club, Vijayawada recorded under Ex.P22. As per the cross-examination of PW.4, it is clear that the police have not followed the procedure of obtaining a search warrant but the Ex.P22 show that all the proceedings were recorded in the ACB Office but not at Executive Club, Vijayawada. With this discussion, I am of the view that the search proceedings recorded under Ex.P22, have not been recorded at the place of search hence, the prosecution failed to prove the Ex.P22.

12

(b) Ex. P25 & 27

PW.6 has deposed about holding a search in the houses of the son of A.3 under Mediators

Report/Ex.P25 and 27 and they did not find any incriminating material. PW.74/Investigating

Officer also deposed similarly.

(c) Ex. P28, P29 & P.30

PW.7 deposed about Mediators Report/Ex.P28, 29 and P.30 under which A.3 was examined while he was in jail. PW.74/Investigating Officer also deposed similarly.

(i) Ex.P28 show that A.3 was examined regarding the password of the computer and he stated that he could not remember the password of the CPU.

(ii) Under Ex.P29, A.3 was questioned about his share in the Balu syndicate and he stated as mentioned in Mediators Report dated 20.03.2012/Ex.P22 and further stated about the benami shops mentioned in Ex.P22.

(iii) Under Ex.P30, A.3 stated about financial and economic status of two license holders of lower income group and holding white ration cards and he further stated about mamools given to the officers mentioned in Ex.P22.

During the cross-examination, PW.74/Investigating Officer deposed that no incriminating material has been seized in pursuance of confession of A.3 recorded under Ex.P28 to 30.

PW.7/Mediator admitted that Ex.P28, 29 and P.30 do not disclose oral and written instructions of his higher officials to act as mediators. He admitted that he had not examined A.2 about the commission of the offence and he did not know about the scrutiny report. He further admitted that he was not present at the time of the recording of the confession of A.2 and the contents of the confession. He further admitted that Ex.P28, 29 and P.30 do not contain recitals that who scribed Ex.P23. Hence, it is clear that except for the confession before the police, there is no other material in support of the prosecution case. However, the confession of A.3 recorded under

Ex.P28 to 30 while in police custody, is not admissible in the evidence. Though PW.5 and

Ex.P28, 29 and P.30 disclose the details given by A.2 recorded under Ex.P28, 29 and P.30 regarding amounts paid to the excise officials, the Investigating Officer failed to examine the officers concerned.

16. Regarding search warrants are concerned, Sec.99 & 100 deal with the subject. In the instant case, the police followed the search procedure laid down U/sec.165 Cr. P.C. Though

Sec.165 Cr.P.C. empowers the Investigating Officer to search, sec.165 (4) mandates procedure about search warrants dealt U/sec.100 of Cr.P.C. Sec.93 deals with the procedure of issuing a search warrant. Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure of search in a closed house with a search warrant.

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C says " Persons in charge of closed place to allow search- 13 (1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.

(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 47.

(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made another woman with strict regard to decency.

(4) 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 order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses, but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person on his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

(7) When any person is searched under sub-section(3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)".

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. mandates the Investigating Officer to search a closed house with a search warrant and with the help of local inhabitants. But, in the instant case, the Investigating

Officer has not followed the procedure laid down U/sec.93 & 100 Cr. PC. Hence, the alleged search and seizure of documents i.e. Ex.P2 to P.6 under mediators report/Ex.P8, Ex.P12/spiral notebook under mediators report/Ex.P13 against A.2 are contrary to the provision Sec.100 Cr.

P.C. and can not be relied on.

17. Regarding the confession concerned, Sec.26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deals with the confession.

In the authority, Aghnoo Nagesla vs State of Bihar AIR 1966, 119, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India had discussed the confession and admissibility and held as follows:

14 " If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as s. 24, s. 25 and s. 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section such as s. 27 of the Evidence Act. Little substance and content would be left in ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted.

If the confession is caused by an inducement, threat or pro-mise as contemplated by s. 24 of the Evidence Act, the whole of the confession is excluded by s.

24. Proof of not only the admission of the offence but also the admission of every other incriminating fact such as the motive, the preparation and the subsequent conduct is excluded by s. 24. To hold that the proof of the admission of other incriminating facts is not barred by s. 24 is to rob the section of its practical utility-and content. It may be suggested that the bar of S. 24 does not apply to the other admissions, but though receivable in evidence, they are of no weight, as they were caused by inducement, threat or promise. According to- this suggestion, the other admissions are relevant but are of no value. But we think that on a plain construction of s. 24, proof of all the admissions of incriminating facts contained in a confessional statement is excluded by the section. Similarly, ss. 25 and 26 bar not only proof of admissions of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer but also admissions contained in the confessional statement of all incriminating facts related to the offence.

A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of ss. 24, 25 and 26 Section 27 thus shows that a confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co-accused a confession of another accused affecting not only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may from part of the confession.

If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of s. 25 is lifted by s.

18. Our attention is not drawn to any decision of this Court or of the Privy Council on the question whether apart from s. 27, a confessional first information report given by an accused is receivable in evidence against him. Decisions of the High Courts on this point are hopelessly conflicting. They contain all shades of opinion ranging from total exclusion of the confession to total inclusion of all admissions of incriminating facts except the actual commission of the crime. In Harji v. Emperor(1) and Noor Muhammad v. Emperor(2), the Lahore High Court held that the entire confessional first information report was inadmis-sible in evidence. In Emperor v.

Harman Kisha (3), the Bom-bay High Court held that the entire confessional report dealing with events on the night of the offence was hit by s. 25, and it could not be said that portions of it dealing with the motive and the opportunity were not parts of the confession. In King Emperor v.

Kommoju Brahman(1), the Patna High Court held that no part of the confessional first information report was receivable in evidence, the entire report formed a single connected story 15 and no part of it had any meaning or significance except in relation to the whole, and it would be wrong to extract parts of the statement and treat them as relevant. This case was followed (1)

A.I.R. 1918 Lah. 69. "

In view of provision Sec.26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of A.2 about syndicate, recorded under Mediators Report/Ex.P10 and Confession of A.2 about the bribes recorded under Ex.P23, confession of A.1 under Mediators Report/Ex.P15 about syndicate and payment of bribes to the government officials and confession of A.1 against A.4, and further confession of A.3 under Mediators Report/Ex.P22 about syndicate and further amounts paid to government officials including A.4, are not admissible in evidence.

19.In addition to the search and seizure and confessions of A1 to A3 discussed above, the prosecution examined P.W. 8 and PW. 9/employee of the Balu syndicate owned by Accused No.

1 and 3. The evidence of P.W. 8 and 9 are discussed here under.

PW.8 deposed that previously worked as a Clerk in a liquor shop in Tanuku Chakrapani,

Rajahmundry. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu syndicate also that he had never worked in the Balu syndicate. He never handed over the sale amount and particulars of expenditure to A.2. He does not know about the mamools given to the excise police and police on behalf of the syndicate by A.2. Accordingly, PW.8 turned hostile. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, did not support the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C statement/Ex.P31 accordingly, he turned hostile. Further in the cross- examination of the defence counsel, he deposed that he could not identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.9 deposed that previously worked as a Clerk in the liquor shop of Balaji Wines,

Rajahmundry owned by Karri Chiranjeevi. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu syndicate and he never worked in the Balu syndicate. Accordingly, PW.9 turned hostile. In the cross- examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, did not support the contents of his 161 Cr. P.C statement/Ex.P31 accordingly, he turned hostile. Further in the cross-examination of the defence counsel, he deposed that he could not identify A.1 to A.4.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W. 8 and 9 do not support the prosecution.

20. To prove that A.1 to A.3 were running the Balu liquor syndicate office over 13 licensed shops, the prosecution examined Nowkarnamas of every licensed shop, landlords of the shops, neighbours, bank officials, Income Tax department and other witnesses. As per the Prosecution case, A.1 and A.3 were the partners in shops A to H and A.3 is the owner of 5 shops i.e. I to M mentioned below. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses of respective shops, nothing has been elicited during the trial and the same is discussed as follows:

(A) GSL.No.427: PW.27 deposed as he was nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.427/2010-12 by name Teja Wines owned by Nelli Trimurthulu. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and Balu liquor 16 syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and he failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.40/Neighbour deposed about Teja Wines and does not know about the owner and

Nowkarnama. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P63.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Nelli Trimurthulu. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.60/Employee of Income Tax Department deposed about income tax returns of Nelli

Trimurthulu of the year 2009-10. His cross-examination does not show anything about the syndicate.

(B) GSL.No.430 PW.9 deposed as he was nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.430/2010-12 by name Balaji Wines owned by Karri Chiranjeevi. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and he failed to identify

A.1 to A.4.

PW.15 owner of the building deposed as Karri Chiranjeevi was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C

Statement/Ex.P38.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Karri Chiranjeevi marked under Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.60/Employee of Income Tax Department deposed about income tax returns of Karri

Chiranjeevi of the year 2009-10. His cross-examination does not show anything about the syndicate.

(C) GSL.No.432 PW.10 deposed as he was nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.432/2010-12 by name Lakshmi Wines owned by Addanki Venkata Surya Nageswar Rao. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and he failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.30 owner of the building deposed as Addanki Venkata Surya Nageswar Rao was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and 17 carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P53.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Addanki Venkata Surya Nageswar Rao marked under Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

(D) GSL.No.442 PW.17 & 18 deposed as they were nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.442/2010- 12 by name Lakshmi Devasai Wines owned by Kanukuri Veera Venkata Rama Krishna Rao.

They do not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the

Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.29 owner of the building deposed as Kanukuri Veera Venkata Rama Krishna Rao was the tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P52.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Kanukuri Veera Venkata Rama Krishna Rao marked under

Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

(E) GSL.No.449 PW.19 & 20 deposed as they were nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.449/2010- 12 by name Sivasai wines owned by Kothapalli Venkata Ramana Rao. They do not know A.1 to

A.3 and Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to A.4. PW.39 another employee of the wine shop deposed similarly and turned hostile.

PW.31 owner of the building deposed as Kothapalli Venkata Ramana Rao was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161

Cr.P.C Statement/Ex.P54. PW.41/Neighbor did not support the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C.

statements and turned hostile.

PW.54/MRO has deposed about the holding of white ration card by the license holder

Kothapallai Venkata Ramana and about belt shops within the locality but in cross-examination he deposed that he did not take any action. The said evidence of PW.54 is not related to the Balu liquor Syndicate.

18

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Kothapalli Venkata Ramana Rao marked under Ex.P100. In cross- examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.68/Labour Officer deposed as he inspected Sivasai wines and registered minimum wages case as PW.19 was not paid properly but his evidence is not related to the syndicate and business of the liquor syndicate.

(F) GSL.No.454 In view of the evidence of PW.26/Nowkaranama, PW.42/Neighbour,

PW.65/Superintendent, PW.28/Landlord of the building, PW.60/Income Tax Officer and

PW.67/Branch Manager and Investigating Officer PW.74 and PW.56 and other mediators,

Kothapalli Bala Subrahmanyam/A.1 is the owner of this Devasai wines. But nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW.26,28,42,65,60 and 67 that A.1 is the owner of the Balu liquor syndicate for over 13 wine shops.

Confession by mediators and Investigating Officer (G) GSL.No.457 PW.21 & 22 deposed as they were nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.457/2010- 12 by name Annapurna wines owned by Vanga Pullareddy. They do not know A.1 to A.3 and

Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to A.4. PW.37 another employee of the wine shop deposed similarly and turned hostile.

PW.52 owner of the building deposed as Vanga Pullareddy was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr.P.C

Statement/Ex.P78. PW.38/Neighbour did not support the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and turned hostile.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Vanga Pullareddy marked under Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.60/employee of the Income Tax Office deposed about vanga Pullareddy as he is the owner of GSL.No.458/2010-12 and submitted returns for 2009-10. Accordingly, the evidence of the PW.60 does not support GSL.No.457/2010-12 owned by Vanga Pullaredy.

(H) GSL.No.458 PW.11 deposed as he was a clerk in shop GSL.No.458/2010-12 by name

Devasai wines owned by P. Subrahmanyam. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the 19 court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to

A.4.

PW.32 owner of the building deposed as P. Subrahmanyam was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C

Statement/Ex.P55.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of P. Subrahmanyam marked under Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.60/employee of the Income Tax Office deposed about vanga Pullareddy as he is the owner of GSL.No.458/2010-12 and it does not support the evidence of the above witness about ownership of the shop.

(I) GSL.No.464 PW.23 & 24 deposed as they were Nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.464/2010- 12 by name Devasai wines, Dowlaiswaram owned by Bhimala Venkata Satya Suryanarayana.

They do not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the

Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.33 owner of the building deposed as Bhimala Venkata Satya Suryanarayana was a tenant of his shop. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P56.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Bhimala Venkata Satya Suryanarayana marked under Ex.P100. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

(J) GSL.No.468 PW.14 deposed as he was nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.468/2010-12 by name Devasai wines owned by Surapureddy Rambabu. PW.13 also worked in the said wines. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the

Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and he failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.34 owners of the building deposed as Surapureddy Rambabu was a tenant of his shop @ Rs.10,000/- per month as a witness not supported prosecution regarding syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P57.

20

PW.49/Executive Engineer, APSHCL, Rajahmundry deposed as Venkata Lakshmi wife of

Surapureddy Rambabu and his mother Jayalakshmi were allotted houses under Indiramma

Gruhalu. His letter is marked as Ex.P75. However, it does not disclose any material regarding the syndicate.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 15.02.2012 about Account of Surapureddy Rambabu marked under Ex.P100. In cross- examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

As per the evidence of PW.72/Retired Tahsildar and his letter/Ex.P105, Surapureddy

Rambabu had the land of Ac.0.74 cents in S.No.67/2 in Choppella village and two houses also and his wife obtained a loan and constructed a house. He had a white ration card. In cross- examination, he specifically deposed in a cross that he has not addressed any letter to take action against persons who maintained belt shops and he has not received any complaints about the existence of belt shops. He further deposed that there is no specific rule stating white ration card holders shall not do any business.

(K) GSL.No.497 PW.12 deposed as he was Nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.497/2010-12 by the name Ayyappa Wines owned by Mutyam Surya Prakasa Rao. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 dated 15.02.2012 about Account of Mutyam Surya Prakasa Rao marked under Ex.P100. In cross- examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

PW.73/Deputy Tahsildar deposed that Mutyam Surya Prakasa Rao was having a white ration card. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about said communication and further there is no specific rule that white ration card holders shall not do any business.

(L) GSL.No.543 PW.35 owner of the building deposed as Gadam Satyanarayana was a tenant of his shop @ Rs.10,000/- per month. As the witness does not support prosecution regarding the syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross- examined and marked his 161 Cr.P.C Statement/Ex.P58.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 15.02.2012 about Account of Gadam Satyanarayana marked under Ex.P100. In cross- 21 examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

(M) GSL.No.545 PW.25 deposed as he was nowkarnama in shop GSL.No.545/2010-12 by name Balaji wines owned by Appari Uma Maheswar Rao. He does not know A.1 to A.3 and the

Balu liquor syndicate. In the cross-examination held by the Spl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and he failed to identify A.1 to A.4.

PW.36 owners of the building deposed as Appari Uma Maheswar Rao was a tenant of his shop @ Rs.10,000/- per month as a witness not supported prosecution regarding syndicate office and carrying business beyond timing hours, the Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined and marked his 161 Cr. P.C Statement/Ex.P59.

PW.67/AGM, Indian bank deposed as his predecessor addressed letter/Ex.P100 15.02.2012 about Account of Appari Uma Maheswar Rao marked under Ex.P100. In cross- examination, he deposed that he does not know any firm or syndicate but the account belongs to the individual.

As per the evidence of PW.55/Retired Deputy Collector and his letter/Ex.P83, Appari

Uma Maheswar Rao had houses and businesses and has been getting an income of Rs.5,00,000/-.

He obtained a house loan under the Indiramma House scheme. In cross-examination, he specifically deposed in a cross that he has not personally enquired about but prepared Ex.P83 based on the VAO report.

Conclusion:

Though the Prosecution examined witnesses i.e. clerk of respective shops, and other government officials regarding income, properties and bank accounts of license holders and their landlord, all the evidence of the above witnesses not disclosed about the respective shops A to H were under Balu liquor syndicate allegedly owned by A.1 and A.3 and both of them were owning all the shops. Further, the prosecution failed to examine all the licensed holders of respective shops. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no material evidence to prove that the Balu liquor syndicate is allegedly owned by A.1 and A.3.

21. P.W. 45 deposed he did not know about the Balu syndicate and Accused all 13 wine shops. He turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. His statement is marked as Ex.

P71. P.W.46 was deposed as he never worked as a transporter in the Balu Syndicate. He did not know A1 to A3. He did not support the Balu syndicate consisting of 13 shops and he turned hostile. His statement is marked as Ex. P72.

22.In addition, the prosecution examined Excise Superintendents PW.59 & 65, their evidence discloses furnishing the details of the shops required by the ACB Officials and 22 nowkarnamas. In the cross-examination both the witnesses specifically deposed that the information/documents furnished to them do not disclose any recitals of Balu liquor syndicate.

The evidence of PW.65 shows that A.1 had only one shop i.e. Devasai Wines as per Ex.P93 and further A.1 is not connected with the other shop mentioned under Ex.P94.

23.Given the evidence of Mediators PW.1 to 7, Clerks PWs.8 to 11, Investigating Officers

PW.56,71 & 74 about searches regarding liquor syndicate at Rajahmundry Urban & Rural at the offices, residences of A.1 to A.3 and nowkarnamas Pws.12 to 14, 16 to 27, landlords PWs.15, 28 to 36, neighbours/watchman/helper PWs.37 to 42, Tahsildars PWs.53 to 55, 61 to 64, PW.70 to 73, Bank Managers PW.67 and Income Tax Officer PW.60, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 formed a liquor syndicate along with his partner A.3 and with the assistance of

A.4 licensees at Rajahmundry Urban & Rural.

POINT No.2

24. Whether liquor syndicate selling liquor over and above MRP rates opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co-operation of A.4/Excise Inspector and other public servants in violation of Provisions of AP

Excise Act and AP Excise Rules and the prosecution has proved that the Accused No.1 to 4 are punishable for violating the provisions Sec.14(9) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 41 of AP

Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules, 2005 and Sec.120(b) of

Indian Penal Code?

(-) Sec. 14(9) of the A.P. Excise Act. 1968 says that "14. Submission and finalization of tenders:

(1)…….(8) (9) No person shall be entitled to obtain the lease of more than one shop. In the event of a person being a successful auction purchaser of a shop, all the other tenders filed by him in respect of any other shop/shops shall automatically become invalid".

25. Regarding Sec.14(9) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and A.P. Excise Rules 2005, the prosecution examined Excise Superintendents PW.59 & 65 in addition to the nowkarnamas. The evidence of

PW.59 & 65 discloses furnishing the details of the shops required by the ACB Officials and nowkarnamas. In the cross-examination both the witnesses specifically deposed that the information/documents furnished to them do not disclose any recitals of Balu liquor syndicate.

The evidence of PW.65 shows that A.1 had only one shop i.e. Devasai Wines as per Ex.P93 and further A.1 is not connected with the other shop mentioned under Ex.P94.

26. PW.74/Investigating Officer deposed that he secured information and examined MROs,

VROs etc. regarding violations of the Excise Act and Excise Rules. P.W. 57 present DSP, East

Zone, East Godavari as his predecessor addressed a letter/Ex. P.85 and informed that no Excise cases were registered during the period 01.07.2010 to 31.12.2012.

23

27. On perusal of the evidence of MROs PW.61 to 64, PW.70 to 73, Accounts Officer,

Electricity Department/PW.66, the evidence of PWs.61 to 64 and PW.70 to 73 show about running of belt shops but do not disclose any material that by whom the belt shops were being run and particularly there is no material that A.1 to A.3 is responsible and A.4 conspired with them. Except for the above evidence, there is no material to show that A.1 & A.3 held more than one shop and submitted false depositions further they were doing benami transactions maintaining belt shops and carried business beyond business hours, selling the liquor at a higher price than the MRP Rates etc. In Point No.1, I discussed the evidence of nowkarnamas of all the 13 GSL shops specifically and opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that A.1 and A.3 are the owners of all 13 shops.

28. With the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the violations of AP Excise Act, 1968 and AP Excise Rules, 2005 by A.1 to A.4. Regarding rule 41 of AP Excise Rules, 2005, I discuss the same in the later issue.

Point No. 3 (III) Whether A.1 and A.3 together, paid regular mamools through A.2 as illegal gratification to Accused No.4/Excise Inspector and A.4 being a public servant conspired with A.1 to A.3 and collected monthly mamools as illegal gratification from liquor syndicate of A.1 and the prosecution has proved theoffence U/Sec. 109 of IPC r/w 13(1) (a) of the Provision of

Corruption Act 1988 against A1 to A3 and further proved offence u/sec.13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A4?

Rule 41 of AP Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licenses) Rules, 2005, says that

" Rule 41 Monetary transactions with officers prohibited: Any kind of monetary

transactions unconnected with the official purpose between the licensee and the personnel of the Prohibition & Excise, Police, Revenue Department and the personnel of the APBCL is strictly prohibited".

The Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988 deals with the misconduct of public servants for accepting, obtaining etc., of bribes under section 13 of the Act.

29. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— 1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

(a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in Section 7; or

(b)…….

(c)……

(d)…….

24

2. Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

The prosecution alleges that the Accused Nos.1 to 3 paid mamools to the public servants including Accused No.4/Excise Inspector on behalf of liquor shops to ignore the violations of the

Excise Laws. Hence, it is necessary to discuss about the employment of Accused No.4 which falls within the definition of public servant Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the evidence of witnesses concerned about sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer No.4.

PUBLIC SERVANT

SECTION 2(C) OF THE PREVENTION CORRUPTION ACT:

30. Undisputedly, Accused Officer No.4 is Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry

South, Rajahmundry as of the date of offence. His service and his pay are as per the norms of the

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the employment of Accused Officer No.4 comes within the purview of the definition of a public servant under Sec.2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption

Act. Moreover, the employment of the Accused Officer No.4 is not disputed by the defence.

SANCTION ORDER:

31. P.W.70/Section Officer deposed based on the authorization/Ex.P103. His evidence shows that as per the record, the then Principal Secretary to Revenue of Government of A.P. accorded permission to prosecute Accused No.4 on perusal of the total record i.e., copy of the final report, occurrence report, four mediator reports, one search proceedings, the signatory satisfied and accorded sanction/Ex.P104. On perusal, Ex.P104/Sanction Proceedings G.O.Ms.No.50

Revenue(VIG, V) Department 30.01.2013 disclose that the Government issued a sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer No.4 in the present crime for receiving a total bribe of Rs.88,500/- and the details are as follows:

"9…………… The fact of receipt of total illegal gratification of Rs.88,500/- in the form of mamools by Sri Billa Radha Kishan is found entered in Page No.45 of book No.2 for Rs.12,500/- (dt.21.11.201), Page No.47 of book No.3 for Rs.33,000/- (dt.22.11.2011) and 2 entries in loose sheet No.3 for Rs.24,500/- (July-2011) and for Rs.18,500/- (Sept-2011) of daily transaction registers/documents seized from said liquor syndicate office, Rajahmundry on 16.12.2011. The authenticity of the business entries found in the seized records is established by documentary evidence like details of D.Ds purchased for the lifting of stock from the Depot of APBCL. Payment of Electricity bills of various wine shops, payment of fine imposed by Labour Department etc., Thus, Sri Billa Radha Kishan, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry South, East Godavari District abused his official position and received bribes (mamools) from the syndicate, caused pecuniary advantage for himself and others without any public interest and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 120-B, 34 & 109 IPC.

10………………………….

11. Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 19(1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) read with section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, do 25 hereby accord sanction for the prosecution of Sri Billa Radha Kishan, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry South, East Godavari District for the offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 120-B, 109 r/w 34 IPC and for any other cognate offences under the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in respect of the aforesaid acts for taking cognizance of the offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction."

32. As per the prosecution case, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have paid bribes to several public servants, on behalf of the alleged Balu Syndicate, including Accused Officer No.4. Though the prosecution case discloses the bribe paid to several public servants i.e., Law & Order Police etc., the Investigating Officer made the Accused Officer No.4 only as an accused since Accused No.4 is Excise Department employee. In view of the above circumstances, it is the turn of the prosecution to prove the payments of bribes to the Accused Officer No.4.

33. As per the prosecution case, initially Investigating Officer/P.W.56 along with mediators inspected the Balu Syndicate Office and seized Exs.P2 to P6 under the cover of Mediators

Report/Ex.P8 dated 16.12.2011. Subsequently, Accused No.2 was interrogated in the presence of mediator/P.W.2 under the cover of Mediator Report/Ex.P10 in which Accused No.2 confessed about payments mentioned in the sanction G.O./Ex.P104. Ex.P10 specifically shows that all the payments made to Accused No.4 through Head Constable by name P. Seshagiri and one K.V.

Raghavulu, Head Constable, South Excise Station and others. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses P.Seshagiri/P.W.48, it shows that he was not aware whether A1 paid mamools of

Rs.10,500/- to Accused No.4 and similarly P.W.47 by the name Veera Raghavulu also deposed that he was not aware whether A1 paid mamools to Accused No.4. As witnesses not supported in the chief examination, both the witnesses were cross-examined by Spl. P.P. and they denied the suggestion of the Spl. P.P.about the contents of their respective 161 Cr. P.C. Statements and they turned hostile. Their 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as Ex.P.73 and P.74. In Point No.1, I discussed about confession of Accused No.2 recorded under Ex.P10 and the confession of

Accused No.1 recorded under Ex.P15, is not admissible in evidence since the same are hit by provision 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Now the witnesses P.Ws.47 and 48 also do not support the contents of their 161 Cr. P.C. statements and in turn, the same differ with the contents of confession of Accused No.2 under Ex.P10 and of Accused No.1 under Ex.P15.

34. In addition to the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the evidence of P.Ws.47 and 48, the prosecution produced book/Ex.P3 and book/Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 to prove the handwriting of

Accused No.2 in the books. The prosecution produced the evidence of Forensic Expert/P.W.69 and report/Ex.P102. On perusal of the record, the prosecution was sent the handwriting of four persons including Accused No.2. For opinion over the handwriting of Accused No.2, the

Investigating officer got send standard handwriting of Accused No.2 and questioned hand writings No. 1 to 148 and further sent the hand writings of others. As the hand writings of others, except Accused No.2, are not relevant presently since the same relates to the other Government

Officials who are not shown as accused, I am of the view that the hand writings and opinion 26 against hand writings of Accused No.2 are only disputed against Accused No.4. The Accused

No.4 is said to have worked in Southern Excise Station. Hence, our discussion on finding is restricted to entries relating to Southern Excise Station only. On perusal, the evidence of P.W.67 hand writings expert and his report Ex. P102 show that who wrote the standard hand writings (A2) S.1 to S.18 also wrote questions 1 to 108. At this stage, perused entries made in books Ex.

P3 and Ex.P4 and loose sheet/Ex. P5. The writing on page No. 47 of Ex. P4 is marked as question 81, writings on page No. 45 of the book Ex. P3 and hand writings in Ex. P5 are marked as question No. 94 for handwriting expert opinion purposes. On perusal of question No. 81 on page No. 47 of Ex. P4 and question No. 49 at page No. 45 in Ex. P3, there are two entries in question No. 81 of Ex. P4 and one entry in question No. 49 of Ex. P3 disclosing South Excise

Station only and nothing else. On perusal of both the books Ex. P3 and Ex.P4, both the books do not disclose any material as the same belongs to Balu syndicate or any other wine shop. The loose sheet marked as Ex. P5 disclose entry as Excise only with specific months and accordingly the entries in Ex. P5 does not disclose the same as those entries belonging to South Excise Police

Station. But the prosecution has relied on the confession of A2 under Ex. P10 and confession of

A1 under Ex. P15 about the certain entries in Ex. P5 belongs to Accused No. 4. I already discussed in point No. 1 and concluded that confessions of A2 and A1 are hit by provisions Sec.

25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act hence, I think that certain entries in Ex. P5 against A4 are vague and lack of proper evidence. Regarding entries in Ex. P3 and Ex. P4, the entries show

South Excise Station but it does not disclose the details of the place, and to whom the amount was paid and who received the amount. I already discussed that the books do not disclose any material as the same belong to a specific wine shop or Balu Syndicate and the entries are doubtful. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the entries in Ex. P3 and Ex.P4 are vague and lack specific. In the authority "Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shula and others. AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1406", the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed the admissibility of daily entries and held as follows:

"In Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal [ A. I. R 1925 Nagpur 445] it was observed tat entries in book s of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal Vs. Ram Rakha [ A. I. R. 1953 Pepsu 113] the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been prove, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not, therefore, enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that the were in accordance with facts.

27

The evidentiary value of entries relevant under Section 34 was also considered in Hiralal Mahabir Pershad (supra ) I.D. Dua, ]. (as he then was ) speaking for the Court observed that such entries though relevant were only corroborative evidence and it is to be shown further by some independent evidence that the entries represent

honest and real transactions and that monies were paid in accordance with those

entries.

A conspectus of the above decisions makes it evident that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. Keeping in view the above principles, even if we proceed on the assumption that the entries made in MR 71/91 are correct and the entries in the other books and loose sheets which we have already found to be not admissible in evidence under Section 34 are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss, deleve into or decide upon the contention raised by Mr. Altaf Ahmed in this regard. Suffice it to say that the statements of the for witnesses, who have admitted receipts of the payments as shown against them in MR 71/91, can at best be proof of reliability of the entries so far they are concerned and not others. In other words, the statements of the above witnesses cannot be independent evidence under Section 34 as against the above two respondents. So far as Shri Advani is concerned Section 34 would not come in aid of the prosecution for another reason also. According to the prosecution case itself his name finds place only in one of the loose sheets (sheet No. 8) and not in MR 71/91. Resultantly, in view of our earlier discussion, section 34 cannot at all be pressed into service against him."

35. Though Mediators P.Ws. 1 to 7 deposed that A.1 and A.3 held 13 wine shops under Balu liquor syndicate, mediator P.W. 3 deposed that A.1 confessed about holding 8 shops i.e. A to H mentioned above recorded under Ex. P15 in ACB Office and A.3 holding 5 shops i.e. I to M mentioned above under Ex. P22 in executive club Vijayawada, in Police custody, these confessions are hit by Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Further, these versions of A1 to A3 are not supported by any independent witness directly or indirectly related to 13 A4 wine shops.

In view of authority CBI vs V.C. Sukla, the entries Q. No. 81 on Page 47 in Ex. P4 and Q.

No. 49 at Page 45 in Ex. P3, disclose Southern Excise Station only and the same does not disclose to whom the amount was paid and who received the amount. Hence, the entries in Ex.

P3 and P4 are vague and lack specificity. Further, constables P.Ws. 47 and P.W.48 have not supported the receipt of any amounts from A2 on behalf of the Balu syndicate. As per the authority mentioned, the entries mentioned in the books Ex. P3 and P4 and entry in loose sheet

Ex. P5 is not independent evidence, the same cannot be relied on. With the discussion about the writings expert report and the evidence of P.W.47 and 48, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove payments of mamools/bribes by A1, on behalf of Balu syndicate, to Accused No.4/Excise

Inspector. As the prosecution failed to prove about payment of bribes by A1 to A4, the requirement for discussion over the argument of the Special Public prosecutor about the applicability of Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, does not arise.

36. The prosecution further examined Nodel officers i.e., P.W. 50 and 51 of Bharati Airtel

Limited and P.W.58 Nobel officer of Vodafone. P.W. 50 deposed and identified letter Ex. P. 76 furnishing call details and addresses of subscribers. As per the evidence of P. 50, phone No.

28 9246782255 belongs to M. Srinivas/A2, Phone No. 9248115558 belongs to P. Subrahmanyam,

Phone No. 9248010555 belongs to K. Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Rao, Phone No. 9246908444 belong to P. Subrahmanyam. In the cross-examination, P.W 50 deposed that he could not say the contents of the conversation among the phone numbers. Ex. P76 shows the period of calls from

March - 2011 to March - 2012. This letter does not disclose the details of the calls either. Though

P.W. 50 is deposed about the call details of A2 and others, the said evidence of the P.W50 is not sufficient to conclude that the calls in and out among the numbers specifically prove that those calls about the offence in this case.

P.W. 51 deposed and identified letter Ex. P. 77 furnishing call details and addresses of subscribers. As per the evidence of P.W. 51, there are phone numbers of 8 persons and those are not of Accused 1 to 4. Hence, this evidence is not material.

P.W. 58 deposed and identified letter Ex. P. 86 furnishing call details and addresses of subscribers. As per evidence of P.W. 58, phone No. 9948591442 belongs to Sriharinath/P.W.8,

Phone No. 9948202323 belongs to Simhachalam, Phone No. 9848860794 belongs to Venkata

Ramana, Phone No. 9848015558 belong to Bala Subrahmanyam/A1. In the cross-examination,

P.W. 58 deposed that he could not say the contents of the conversation among the phone numbers. Ex. P86 shows the period of calls from March - 2011 to March - 2012. This letter does not disclose the details of the calls of each number. Though P.W. 58 deposed about the phone numbers of A1 and P.W. 8, the P.W. 8 in his evidence did not support the prosecution case. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the said evidence of the P.W58 is not sufficient to conclude that the calls in and out among the numbers specifically prove that those calls about the offence in this case.

37. The prosecution examined P.W. 43/IML Depot Manager. As per the evidence of P.W.43, he was supervising the loading and unloading of liquor issuing bills and following Government instructions. His evidence further shows that he used to collect amounts through D.Ds from licence holders. He does not know the vehicles used by licensees. He did not know that 13 shops allegedly belonged to the Balu syndicate. He admitted the signatures in letter EX. P. 66 and 67 and did not support the contents of the letter. His statement is marked as Ex. P.68.

P.W. 44/Inspector also deposed about the tender process held in Collector office,

Kakinada on 07.06.2010 for the Period – 2010 - 2012 and the received sealed covers and allotted liquor shops for the highest bidder and later got compliance of depositing of money and other related forms about Nowkarnamas. He supported searches and seizure of files by ACB officials.

He did not support the Balu syndicate consisting of 13 shops, and he had turned hostile. His statement is marked as Ex. P70.

38. With the discussion made in points No. 1 to 3, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused 1 to 4 for the charges U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P Excise Act 1968 and Rule 29 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and

Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 &

Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC.

In the result, Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P

Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A4 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Assistant, Contract Basis, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 26th day of March 2024.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN CC 3/2018

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1:Md. Ismail, Asst Commercial Tax Officer P.W.2:Vinnakota Srinivas, Planning Officer, Kakinada Urban Development Authority, Kakinada P.W.3:Parimi Subrahmanyeswar Rao, Retired Asst. Treasury Officer, Narasapuram P.W.4:B. Venugopal Reddy, Executive Engineer, APCPDCL, Ongole P.W.5:V. Srinivasa Rao, Asst. Accounts Officer, O/o E.R.O, sattenapalli P.W.6:Kaki Venkata Raghu Raj, Asst. Divisional Engineer, Construction, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta P.W.7:Bathina V.V.Narayana Rao, Deputy Executive Engineer, Yeleswaram P.W.8:Bobba Sri Hari Nadh @ Sri Hari , Real Estate Broker P.W.9:Yedida Nagababu, Worker in Delivery Company P.W.10:Yarra Jaggarao, Fruit Business P.W.11:Addanki Naga Durga Viswanadham, Agriculture P.W.12:Gubbala Sri Venkata Narayana, Fancy Shop P.W.13: Gunabathula Krishna Murthy, Fruits Vendor P.W.14:Reddy Rambabu, Nowkarnama P.W.15:Kadiala Venkata Satya Surya Perisam, Cultivation P.W.16:Puppala Satyanarayana, Nowkarnama P.W.17:Kamada Srinivas, Fancy Store P.W.18:Chamutapalli Yedukondalu, Cultivation P.W.19:N. Jagadeeswar Rao, Cloth Business P.W.20:Kusuma Tyagaraju, Nowkarnama P.W.21:Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kirana Shop P.W.22:Adabala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Supervisor in Thirumala School P.W.23:Perumala Ramesh, Nowkarnama 30

P.W.24:Bellala Ramarao, Auto Driver P.W.25:Margani Nageswar Rao, Clerk in Petrol Bunk P.W.26:Peketi Siva Sankar, Private Electrician P.W.27:Sripathi Srinivas, Worker in Cloth Shop P.W.28:Madala Anuradha, Cement Shop P.W.29:Barla Vijay Kumar, Business P.W.30:Yadavalli Suresh Chowdary, Cultivation P.W.31:B. Anuradha, Housewife P.W.32:Malladi Vijay Kumar, Mechanic Shop P.W.33:V. Narasingarao, Panshop P.W.34:Bollepalli Veerabhadrudu, Restaurant P.W.35:Nidra Anasuya, Housewife P.W.36:Eetha Punyavardhan Rao, Senior Citizen P.W.37:Achanta Pandu Satyanarayana @ Pandu,Clerk in Cloth Store, Rajahmundry P.W.38:Matta Mohan Murali, Watchman in Theatre P.W.39:Allam Hariram @ helper raja, Private Employee P.W.40:Oleti Narsayya, Kirana Shop P.W.41:Pachipulusu Ramakrishna, Business P.W.42:Kola Appa Rao, Bamboo work P.W.43:Kola Appa Rao, Retired Chief Manager, TSBCL, Hyderabad P.W.44:N.S. Venumadhav, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Head Quarters, Mangalagiri P.W.45:Vasamsetty Nageswara Rao, Coconut Business P.W.46:Sunkara shanmukha Rama Krishna, Coolie P.W.47:Kambala Veera Raghavulu, Retd. Sub-Inspector, Excise Department P.W.48:Peruri Seshagiri Rao, Retired Head Constable P.W.49:B.H. Srinivas, Retired Executive Engineer P.W.50:B.C.Ramaiah, Nodal Officer, Bharath Airtel P.W.51:B.C.Ramaiah, Nodal Officer, Bharath Airtel P.W.52:Rayudu Rambabu, Hotel Business P.W.53:Smt. B.Sridevi, Special Deputy Collector, K.R.R.C, Krishna District P.W.54:K.Suresh Babu, Retired Tahsildar P.W.55:Ch. Ramakrishna, Retired Deputy Collector P.W.56:D.V.Nageswara Rao, Retired Addl. S.P. P.W.57:M.Krishna Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, East Godavari District P.W.58:A.V. Krishna Kumar Naidu, General Manager Regulatory Cum Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd P.W.59:S.K.D.V. Prasad, Excise Superintendent, Kakinada P.W.60:Seelam Veerababu, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajamahendravaram. P.W.61:T.V.Suryanarayana, Retired Tahsildar P.W.62:Pichika Sarveswara Murthy, Deputy Tahsildar, Seethanagaram P.W.63:K. Rajyalakshmi, Tahsildar, Koyyalagudem P.W.64:Singineedi Venkat Naresh, Deputy Tahsildar, Korukonda P.W.65:K. Pradeep Rao, Superintendent, Excise, STF, Hyderabad P.W.66:Ramu Naidu, Accounts Officer, Visakhapatnam P.W.67:D.S.S. Bharathi, Asst. General Manager Cum Bank Manager, Indian Bank P.W.68:Gunnam Veera Brahmaji Chowdary, Retired Assistant Labour Officer P.W.69:K. Vijaya Goud, Asst. Director, TSFSL, Red hills, Hyderabad. P.W.70:Kandrathi Nagaraju, Section Officer, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District P.W.71:S. Muralimohan, DSP, Mylavaram P.W.72:Yemmireddy Thrimurthulu Prasad, Retired Tahsildar P.W.73:Ch. Surya Gayatri Padma, Deputy Tahsildar, Mandapeta P.W.74:B. Ramakrishna, DSP, Ramachandrapuram 31

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:

P.W.1/Ex.P1: Served Notice U/s 165 Cr.P.C P.W.1/Ex.P2: One book relating to the Sitanagaram Mandal brandy shops account for the month of November in the page No.57 it was noted Rs.32,000/- to Korukonda Prob. Excise monthly and expenses Rs.8800/- Excise ES and Director. P.W.1/Ex.P3: Book relating to accounts of Rajahmundry rural for the month of November in page No.64 noted the Rs.7000/- paid to Excise monthly on 30.11.2011 P.W.1/Ex.P4: Book relating to accounts of Rajahmundry Town for the month of November, it was noted that they paid Rs.33,000/- to south Excise as monthly and Rs.4500/- to the south Excise station for expenses on 22.11.2011. It was noted in the page No.47. P.W.1/Ex.P5: Made up file containing 3 loose sheets. P.W.1/Ex.P6: Made up file containing 11 vouchers noted expenditure from Rs.200 to Rs.1000/- to the Excise staff for rids. P.W.1/Ex.P7: Search list. P.W.1/Ex.P8: Mediators report. P.W.2/Ex.P9: Bunch of six sheets containing the specimen signatures of Mullapudi Srinivas/Accused No.2 duly attested by mediators and

DSP, ACB.

P.W.2/Ex.P10: Mediators report. P.W.2/Ex.P11: Search Proceedings P.W.2/Ex.P12: Squirrel note book P.W.2/Ex.P13: Mediators report dated 02.02.2012. P.W.2/Ex.P14: Mediators report dated 02.03.2012 at 12.00 hrs. P.W.3/Ex.P.15: Mediators report dated 16.02.2012 at 7:30 hrs P.W.3/Ex.P.16: Search proceedings issued to the Accused No.1 by name K. Balasubrahmanyam P.W.3/Ex.P.17: Search proceedings issued to the sister of Accused No.1 by name Smt.K.Sudha Lakshmi P.W.3/Ex.P.18: Search proceedings issued to the mother of Accused No.1 by name Smt. K. Venkata Ramana. P.W.3/Ex.P.19: Made up file containing the copy of the Income Tax Returns P.W.3/Ex.P.20 : Made up file containing the copy of the account statement of Accused No.1 in Corporation Bank, Rajahmundry P.W.3/Ex.P.21: Mediators report (wrongly mentioned as search proceedings) dated 16.02.2012 at 14:00 hrs. P.W.4/Ex.P.22: Mediators report dated 20.03.2012 P.W.5/Ex.P.23: Mediators report dated 16.02.2012 at 12 hrs. P.W.6/Ex.P.26: Search warrant. P.W.6/Ex.P.27: Mediators report dated 20.03.2012 P.W.7/Ex.P.28: Mediators report dated 04.04,2012 at 16.00 hours. P.W.7/Ex.P.29: Mediators report dated 05,04,2012 at 10.00 hours. P.W.7/Ex.P.30: Mediators report dated 06-04-2012 at 10.30 hours. P.W.8/Ex.P.31: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8 P.W.9/Ex.P.32: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9 P.W.10/Ex.P.33: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.10 P.W.11/Ex.P.34: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.11 P.W.12/Ex.P.35: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.12 P.W.13/Ex.P.36: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.13 P.W.14/Ex.P.37: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.14 P.W.15/Ex.P.38: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.15 P.W.16/Ex.P.39: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.16 P.W.17/Ex.P.40: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.17 P.W.18/Ex.P.41: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.18 P.W.19/Ex.P.42: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.19 32

P.W.20/Ex.P.43: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.20 P.W.21/Ex.P.44: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.21 P.W.22/Ex.P.45: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.22 P.W.23/Ex.P.46: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.23 P.W.24/Ex.P.47: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.24 P.W.25/Ex.P.48: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.25 P.W.26/Ex.P.49: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.26 P.W.27/Ex.P.50: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.27 P.W.28/Ex.P.51: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.28 P.W.29/Ex.P.52: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.29 P.W.30/Ex.P.53: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.30 P.W.31/Ex.P.54: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.31 P.W.32/Ex.P.55: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.32 P.W.33/Ex.P.56: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.33 P.W.34/Ex.P.57: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.34 P.W.35/Ex.P.58: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.35 P.W.36/Ex.P.59: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.36 P.W.37/Ex.P.60: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.37 P.W.38/Ex.P.61: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.38 P.W.39/Ex.P.62: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.39 P.W.40/Ex.P.63: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.40 P.W.41/Ex.P.64: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.41 P.W.42/Ex.P.65: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.42 P.W.43/Ex.P.66:Information with covering letter P.W.43/Ex.P.67: Details of the 13 shops with the covering letter P.W.43/Ex.P.68: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.43 P.W.44/Ex.P.69: Tender auction file of one Mutyam Suryaprakash with all forms and details. P.W.44/Ex.P.70: Section 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.44 P.W.45/Ex.P.71: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.45 P.W.46/Ex.P.72: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.46 P.W.47/Ex.P.73: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.47 P.W.48/Ex.P.74: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.48 P.W.49/Ex.P.75: Letter dated 12.03.2012 with the details P.W.50/Ex.P.76: Soft copy with covering letter. P.W.51/Ex.P.77: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.51 P.W.52/Ex.P.78: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.52 P.W.53/Ex.P.79: Letter dated 06.06.2012 along with the reports (14) of Village Revenue Officers, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal P.W.53/Ex.P.80: Letter dated 12.03.2012 along with the enclosures P.W.54/Ex.P.81: Letter dated 10.03.2012 along with enclosures P.W.54/Ex.P.82: Letter dated 23.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 28 VRO’s of the Rajanagaram Mandal P.W.55/Ex.P.83: Letter dated 12.03.2012 along with the enclosures P.W.56/Ex.P.84: Original First Information Report P.W.57/Ex.P.85: Letter of DSP, East Zone, Rajahmundry Urban dated 04.09.2012 along with his requisition P.W.58/Ex.P.86: Soft copy with covering letter P.W.59/Ex.P.87: Covering letter with the details of officers worked in East Godavari District for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2011 P.W.60/Ex.P.88: Letter along with copies of I.T.R P.W.61/Ex.P.89: Letter dated 04.05.2012 along with the reports of the 25 VRO’s of the villages of Rajamundry Rural Mandal P.W.62/Ex.P.90: Letter dated 20.07.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 19 VROs of the villages of Seethanagaram Mandal P.W.63/Ex.P.91: Letter dated 22.05.2012 along with the reports of the VROs of the villages of Kadiam Mandal 33

P.W.64/Ex.P.92: Letter dated 31.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the VROs of the villages of Korukonda Mandal P.W.65/Ex.P.93: Details with covering letter P.W.65/Ex.P.94: List (page Nos. 01 to 05). P.W.65/Ex.P.95: Letter with details P.W.65/Ex.P.96: List of Nowkarnamas of 13 liquor shops of Balu Liquor syndicate. P.W.65/Ex.P.97: Letter with service particulars of A4. P.W.65/Ex.P.98: Details of P & E Stations in East Godavari District functioned for the year 2010-12. P.W.66/Ex.P.99: Letter dated 16.04.2012 along with the statement of the particulars and the letter issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Operations, Rajahmundry P.W.67/Ex.P.100: Letter dated 15.02.2012 along with the particulars of the accounts, statements of accounts of the said 13 persons P.W.68/Ex.P.101: Letter dated 22.03.2012 of S. Chalapathi Rao, Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry P.W.69/Ex.P.102: FSL report along with the Q1 to Q148 and S1 to S48. P.W.70/Ex.P.103: Authorization. P.W.70/Ex.P.104: Sanction Order. P.W.72/Ex.P.105: Letter dated 13.03.2012 with the enclosures P.W.72/Ex.P.106: Letter dated 24.05.2012 of the Tahsildar along with the reports of the 18 VRO’s of 6the villages of Alamuru Mandal P.W.73/Ex.P.107: Letter along with the enclosures P.W.74/Ex.P.108: Proceedings appointing of L.W.92 (I.O.) P.W.74/Ex.P.109: The analyzed list of A.1 to A.3 is marked as Ex.P109 P.W.74/Ex.P.110:The analyzed list from A.4 to A.1 to A.3 P.W.74/Ex.P.111: Letter dated 04.09.2012 stating that no cases are registered against Mutyam Surya Prakash Rao, owner of Ayyappa wines, Alamuru P.W.74/Ex.P.112: The DSP, South Zone, Rajahmundry (Urban) sent a letter

dated 04.09.2012 stating that no furnishing details of cases

registered under Excise Act from 01.07.2010 to 31.12.2011 in Kadiyam Police Station under Excise Act P.W.74/Ex.P.113: The DSP, Central Zone, Rajahmundry sent a letter dated 11.09.2012 stating that no furnishing details of cases registered under Excise Act in I-Town & II-Town, L & O, Police Station under Excise Act. P.W.74/Ex.P.114: The reply letter along with the enclosures.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Rajahmahendravaram 34

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 

Calendar of Case tried by the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Calendar Case No.3/2018

Dates of:

OccurrenceComplaintApprehensionCommencementClosure ofSentence of accusedof trialtrial 16.12.201116.12.201102.03.201211.01.202415.03.202426.03.2024

Name of the Complainant:The State Represented by Range Inspector­I, Anti­Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District.

Name of the Accused:1. Kothapalli Bala Subrahmanyam, S/o Satyanarayana, Age36years,D.No.36­21­11,Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Leader of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

2. Mullapudi Srinivas, S/o Babaji, Age 45 years, D.No.79­16­11, Srilakshmi Venkateswara Nilayam, Opp. Street of Madhavi Nursing home, Tilak Road, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Accountant of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

3. Meka Narasimha Rao, S/o Muaslayya, Age 57 years, Flat No.2, First Floor, Sri Kalyani Apartments, Koka BhaskarammaStreet,A.V.ApparaoRoad, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District (Partner of Balu Liquor Syndicate, Rajamahendravaram)

4. Billa Radha Kishan, Proh & Excise Inspector, Rajahmundry South, Rajahmundry, E.G. District Offence:U/Secs.8,12,14,13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.120(B) r/w 34 & 109 I.P.C.

Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:A1 to A4 are found not guilty

Judgment Pronounced:26.03.2024

The bail bonds of the accused are in force after lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for Delay:

The record in C.C.No.19/2013 was received by transfer from Special Judge, SPE & ACB

Court, Vijayawada as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.131 Home (Courts-A) Department,

dated 02.12.2016 and ROC.No.109/E1/07 dt:07.12.2017 and the same is renumbered as

35

C.C.No.3/2018 on the file of this Court in the month of April, 2018. Notice was issued to both sides. Thereafter the Accused made their appearance on 30.04.2018. Thereafter matter was heard and Judgment is pronounced on 26.03.2024.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences U./Sec. 14(9) of A.P

Excise Act 1968 and Rule 41 of A.P. Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and condition of licenses) Rules 2005 and Sec. 120(b) of India Penal Code and Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 & Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly A1 to A4 are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused are in force after lapse of appeal time.

Special Judge

for the Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District. Copies to :

1) The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram.

2) The Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: Sri.U.U.PRASAD

Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

(FAC) I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, this the 22nd day of June , 2022.

Criminal Revision Petition No.96/2019

Between:

Gandham Malathi Devi, W/o. Parla Shiva Kumar, aged 38 years, Busivari street, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ….Revision Petitioner/Complainant

Vs.,

Sathi Brahma Reddy, S/o. Veeraraghava Rao, Lal Juneja, aged 40 years, Business, Koppavaram village, Anaparthi Mandal.

...Respondent/Accused.

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the revision petitioner against the order dated 18­05­2015 in CC No. 27/2016 on the file of Additional J.F.C.Magistrate, Anaparthi, which is made in:­

This petition is coming on 13­06­2023, for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri. K.V. Subba reddy, Advocate for the respondent and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Aggrieved with the order dt.18.05.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1074/2019 dismissing the petition (of the court Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Anaparthi) filed for summoning the registrar of Births and Deaths, Ward

NO.21, Zone 3 of Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation,

Visakhiapatnam District, the petitioner filed the present Revision Petition against the order with the following grounds. 

i)The order of the lower court dismissing the petition filed to summon for cause production of Births and Death Registrar, is contrary to law and improper.

2 ii)The lower court ought to have have observed the evidence of PW.1. the

P.W.1 admitted that in his evidence that P. Vijaya Lakshmi borrowed amount on 27.02.2011 and she did not know that Vijaya Lakshmi passed away on 24.12.2009. Further PW1 falsely deposed about surname of Vijaya lakshmi.

In fact P.W.1 did not know to Vijaya Lakshmi but he was introduced by

Bhaskara Reddy.

Iii)The lower court failed to appreciate evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others and fabricated Ex.P5 pronote by filling the blank promissory note.

2.In order to prove death of Vijaya Lakshmi, the petitioner filed petition to secure death certificate from proposed witnesses. Further PW.1 did not take steps to prove about the Vijaya Lakshmi’s living. Mere filing of death certificate is not sufficient without bringing Government records to the court.

The lower court erroneously held that petition is filed to drag on the proceedings, hence the Revision Petition may be allowed setting aside the order dt.18.05.2019 passed by lower court in Crl.M.P. 1074/2019 in

C.C.27/2016 or else, the petitioner shall suffer serious loss and hardship.

3.Heard.

4.Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner and one

Vijaya Lakshmi jointly allegedly borrowed amount from the defendant and executed document on 27.02.2011. In fact the aid Vijaya Lakshmi died on 24.12.2009. To prove the date of death of Vijaya Lakshmi, the petitioner filed the petition, but the lower court failed to appreciate the matter properly and dismissed the same, hence the Revision Petition is filed. Considering the circumstances mentioned in the petition, the petition may be allowed setting aside the order or the lower court and provide opportunity to the petitioner to get the document produced by way of summoning the registrar of Births and

Deaths of Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

5. Now the point for determination is:

3

Whether the prayer of the revision petitioner to summon for production of death certificate of P. Vijaya Lakshmi by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths ,

Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation is tenable or not, and there are grounds to allow the petition?

6.POINT:

Perused the lower court record consisting petition filed by the petitioner and the order passed by the lower court. As per the contention of

Crl.M.P.1074/2019 on the file of Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Anaparthi the

petitioner neighbour Vijaya Lakshmi borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/­ from one Bhaskar Reddy and he obtained blank promissory note from the petitioner along with Vijaya lakshmi and one blank cheque bearing

No.638086 of SBI, Industrial bank, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently Vijaya

Lakshmi repaid the amount of Rs.10,000/­ in instalments and she died on 24.12.2009. After marriage, the petitioner started living with her husband at

Hyderabad, hence she did not pursue the issue and the documents executed by her. In order to prove the death of Vijaya Lakshmi on 24.12.2009 she filed the petition to summon Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Ward NO.21, Zone 3,of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District.

Considering the arguments of the respondent in the petition

Crl.M.P.1074/2016 the trial judge held that nothing prevented the petitioner

to obtain death certificate and file Death certificate of Vijaya Lakshmi before the court. Further he relied on the authority 2013(1) ALD 207 in between

Shaik Ujauddin vs. Veerabadra Uma Devi and others wherein his lordship held as follows:­ 4 “10. A private party, in order to substantiate its own plea, cannot seek to drag Government officials/public servants to court.

A public servant cannot be summoned unless court feels that his evidence is necessary for proper and effectual adjudication of disputes involved in the suit”

8.On perusal of the reasons the given by the trial judge to arrive the decision dismissing the petition, I agree with the reasons and finding of the trial judge that nothing prevented the petitioner from securing the death certificate from the office and produce the same before this court. As there is facility and provision to obtain certified copies of documents, there is no need to summon the Government official and cause production of the record before this court and further keeping the government records in the custody of the court that may hamper regular work of the department concerned. With these discussion, I hold that there is no error in the order passed by the lower court and further there are no merits to allow the Revision Petition.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

9.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Anaparthi in

Crl.M.P.NO.629/2019 in C.C.No.27/2016 of Anaparthi dated 18.05.2019.

The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with copy of order and consign the revision record to record room.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of June, 2023.

Special Judge for trial of

 SPE & ACB Cases

FAC/I Additional Sessions Judge, 

Rajamahendravaram.

Copy to:

The 1st Addl. J.F.C.M. Anaparthi.

5

The revision petitioner/complainant filed this criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the orders passed in CC 27/2016 dated 18­05­2015 by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anaparthi in dismissing the application of the revision petitioner for summoning the Registrar of Births and Death, Ward NO.21, Zone 3 of Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal

Corporation, Visakhiapatnam District to cause production of the Births and

Death Register of Ward NO.21,Zone3,of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal 6

Corporation, Visakhapatnam District relating to the year 2009 to prove the date of death of P. Vijaya lakshmi on 24.12.2009 which was registered on 30.12.2009 in registers Births and Deaths and to give evidence thereon, the revision petitioner prefers this revision petition.

2. The Revision Petitioner has filed a complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/Accused which was numbered as C.C.No.27/2016 and pending

before the learned Ist Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anaparthi. 

3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 18.05.2019, the revision has been preferred on the following grounds.

i) It is contended that the order of the lower court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) It is contended that the court ought to have seen that when the 1st respondent as PW1 admitted in h is deposition that the revision petitioner and the said P. Vijayalakshmi borrowed the alleged amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ on 27.02.2011, and that the case of the revision petitioner is that the said

P.V. Lakshmi died on 24.132.2009 and ought to have allowed the application.

iii) It is further contended that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 that he does not know the said P. Vijaya Lakshmi passed away on 24.12.2009.

iv) It is submitted that the court below ought to have seen that PW1 deposed the surname of the said P. Vijaya Lakshmi as Mallidi which is contra to his pleadings and ought to have allowed the petition. 

v) It is contended that the court below ought to have been that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others fabricated the Ex.P5 pronote by filing the blanks of the empty pronote as per their choice and filed the present case and ought to have allowed the petition.

vi) It is further submitted that the court below ought to have held that mere filing of death certificate of the said P. Vijaya lakshmi is not sufficient and the 7 contents of the death certificate in government records have to be brought on record and ought to have allowed the petition.

vii) It is further submitted that the court below ought to have held that the court below wrongly observed that the present petition is filed to drag on the case without considering the defence put forth by the revision petitioner in the present case and erroneously dismissed the petition.

4.Heard the learned Counsels for the revision petitioner and the respondent.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prayer of the revision petitioner to summon for production of death certificate of P. Vijaya Lakshmi by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths ,

Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation is tenable or not, and there are grounds to allow the petition?

10.POINT:

 In the result, the Criminal revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Anaparthi in C.C.No.27/2016 is set­aside, directing the

Trial Court to restore C.C.No.27/2016 on file and proceed in accordance with

Law. The record be sent forthwith to the trial court and the revision record be consigned to the record room. 

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the day of May, 2022.

8 1305.2022

Order pronounced (vide separate order). 

In the result, the Criminal revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahendravaram in

C.C.No.204/2015 is set­aside, directing the Trial Court to restore

C.C.No.204/2015 on file and proceed in accordance with Law.

The Revision Petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 30.05.2022 and pay process for taking further action. The record be sent forthwith to the 9 trial court and the revision record be consigned to the record room. 

I ASJ