Sri V.audhinarayana

CC.No.300/2014 1 19-04-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR.

Present: Sri V. Audhinarayana,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur

Friday, this the 19th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No. 300 of 2014

State Represented by the Forest Range Officer, Velugode Range, Atmakur. … Complainant.

Versus

Patan Mabhu, S/o Patan Meerza, age 35 years R/o. Narayanapuram village, R/o. Agricultural labour, Caste:Muslim Bandi Atmakur (Mandal) … Accused.

. -oo0oo-

This case came before me on 12-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned assistant public prosecutor for the state and of Sri. K. Keshava Reddy, the learned counsel for the accused, and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by its Forest Range Officer, Velugode has laid down charge sheet against the sole accused for the offences punishable under sections 20 (1) c (ii), (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967, Under Section 27 of Wild Life Protection

Act, 1972 and under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act, 2002 in

O.R.No.21/2013-2014.

2. The quintessence of prosecution case is that on 28-08-2012 at about 1:30 a.m., the Forest Section Officer of Abbaraju Kunta Section by name P.A Syam

Sunder (P.W.2) Forest Section Officer of Pangidi by name S. Basheer Ahmed (PW1) and other staff proceeded to regular night patrolling from Base Camp to

CC.No.300/2014 2 19-04-2024

Motha Base Camp in Gundla Braheswaram Sanctuary and when they all reached at Tokala Rastha, they observed focus of light and disturbances and also observed a double Bullock Cart with green long bamboo and on seeing the forest officials, the culprits escaped from the scene of offence and under cover of Forest Special

Proceedings at the scene offence, the property and live stock i.e. bullocks, green long bamboo. The seized property was produced before the Authorized Officer-

Cum-Forest Range Officer, Velugode on 28-08-2012 and same is handed over to

Government Timber Depot, Bairluty. On 02-09-2013, the accused was surrendered

before Forest Range Officer, Velugode and shown readiness to give statement and

confessed the commission of the offence. The Panchanama is recorded before

Panchayatdar. After completion of the investigation, Forest Range Officer filed the charge sheet against accused for illegally entering in the GBM Sancutary area and destroying the habitant of the prime wild animal i.e. Tiger.

3. The theory of defence is one of total denial.

4. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 20 (1) ( C) (ii) (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act against the accused and summons were issued to the accused.

5. Upon appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.PC. The accused was examined under section 239 o;f

Cr.PC for which he denied the accusation against him. Charge under section 20 (1)

C (ii) (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Under Section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act was framed against the accused.

The charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4 Sri O.K.

Venkateswarlu, GBM West; LW5 Sri B. Eswaraiah, ABO, Pangidi; LW6

CC.No.300/2014 3 19-04-2024

K. Nagaraju Naik, Protection Watcher; LW7 K. Chandra Naik, Protection Watcher;

LW8 P. Lingaswamy Naik, protection Watcher; LW9 K. Sreenu Naik, Protection

Watcher; LW10 Neela Naik, Protection Watcher and LW.11 G. Rajulu, Tiger Tracer as they are corroborative evidence.

7. Thereafter, the accused has been examined under section 313 of Cr.PC explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution, who having heard, denied the incriminating evidence and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence and heard arguments of prosecution and defence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as PW1 to PW3 in one voice stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P6. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of mediators in the present case is not fatal to the prosecution case as the scene of offence is a forest area. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that all the witnesses are official witnesses and the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. The learned counsel for accused also argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the double bullock cart with green long bamboo was seized from the possession of the accused. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10. Now the Points for determinations are:

1) Whether the accused was in possession of bullock carts with green

long bamboo 202 numbers (First class of bamboo 102 and second class

bamboo 100 numbers) for his survival ?

2) Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of

CC.No.300/2014 4 19-04-2024

AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and

under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act ?

11. POINTS 1 AND 2:- The specific case of prosecution is that on 28th day of

August, 2013 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused entered GBM sanctuary without permission from the authority and had cut the green long bamboo 202 in number (Ist Class bamboo 102 and IInd Class bamboo 100 in number) and transporting the same through bullock cart, act of the accused is punishable under section 20 (1) C

(ii) (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act. Whereas, the accused pleaded innocence, as such the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of prosecution to bring home the guild of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12. The Prosecution, so as to sustain its charges levelled against the accused has examined PWs 1 to 3. PW1 is the then Section Officer Pangidi Section and PW2 is the then Section Officer Abbaraju Kunta. PW3 is the then Forest Beat Officer,

Abbaraju Kunta.

13. Accused was charged under sections 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act. It is apt to extract the charges leveled against the accused for better understandings as allegations leveled against accused are punishable of different acts.

Section 20 of A.P Forest Act:-Penalties for trespass or damage in reserved

forest and prohibited in such forest:- (1) Any Person who ( C ) in a reserved

forest- ii. Trespasses, pastures cattle or allows cattle to trespass;

iii. causes any damage, either willfully or negligently in feeling or cutting

any trees or dragging any timber;

CC.No.300/2014 5 19-04-2024

Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972:-

Restriction on entry in sanctuary (1) No Person other than,--

(a) a public servant on duty,

(b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary, ( c ) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary,

(d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and

(e) the dependents of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause ( c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under section 28,

Section 7 of Bio Diversity Act. Prior intimation to State Biodiversity Board for accessing biological resource for certain purposes – (1) No person, other than the person covered under sub-Section (2) of Section 3, shall access any biological resource and its associated knowledge for commercial utilization, without giving prior intimation to the concerned State Biodiversity Board, but such access shall be subject to the provisions of clause (b) of Section 23 and Sub-Section (2) of Section 24:

[55. Penalties --- If any person or entity covered under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 or section 7 contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the

Provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 6 or Section 7, such person shall be liable to pay penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to fifty lakh rupees, but where the damage caused exceeds the amount of penalty, such penalty shall be commensurate with the damage caused, and in case, the failure or contravention continues, an additional penalty may be imposed, which shall not exceed one crore rupees and such penalty shall be decided by the adjudicating officer appointed under section 55A.

CC.No.300/2014 6 19-04-2024

14. The prosecution is required to prove that the accused had entered into the sanctuary area and cut the bamboos in the sanctuary and transporting the bamboos by bullock cart which is punishable under sections 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of AP Forest

Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Under Section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act.

14.1: The Prosecution has examined the then Forest Section Officer, Pagidi as

PW1 and PW1 testified that he along with LW.2 to L.W.11 left the base camp at about 10:00 p.m., on 28.8.2013 for night patrolling and as they reached Motha base camp, they observed torch light and sounds of bullock cart at about 1:30 a.m., and when they reached scene of offence one person escaped from scene of offence by leaving bullock cart with green long bamboo 202 in number. They drafted special proceedings at scene of offence. During the course of cross examination, it is elicited that the forest is bounded by trench except at the entry point near base camp. PW.1 denied the suggestion that it is not possible to carry the bullock art to the forest because of trenches around the forest.

15. The prosecution has examined Sri P.A. Syam Sundar, Forest Section

Officer, Abbarajukunta as PW2 and during the course of chief examination, PW2 testified that he along with PW.1 and LW.3 to LW.11 left the zero point base camp to Motha base camp at about 1:00 a.m. on 27.8.2013 and at about 1:00 a.m., they observed torch light and sounds of bullock cart made with rubber tyres and on seeing them, some unknown offenders escaped from the scene and they found double bullock cart with green long bamboo. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are received through

PW2. Ex.P1 is the Special Proceedings dated 28-8-2013. Ex.P2 is the Form-C.

Ex.P3 is the panchanama dated 2-9-2013. Ex.P4 is the report of arrest dated 2-9- 2013. During the course of cross examination PW.2 also admitted that entire boundary of the forest is bounded by trench except entry point near base camp.

16. The prosecution has examined P. Maddilety, the then Forest Beat Officer of

Abbarajugunta Section as PW.3. During the course of chief examination, he deposed that they left the Zero Point base camp at 1:00 a.m. on 27-8-2013 and at

CC.No.300/2014 7 19-04-2024

about 1:30 a.m., they observed torch lights and sounds of bullock carts made with rubber at Thokala rastha and some unknown persons escaped from there. They seized 202 green long bamboos at the scene of offence along with bullock cart under the cover of special proceedings. Ex.P5 i.e. POR and Ex.P6 invoice dated 29.8.2013 are received through PW.3. During the course of cross examination,

PW.3 testified that the scene of offence has to be reached by foot only and entire boundary of the forest is bounded by trenches except entry point at the base camp and cut the bamboos and transporting the same.

17. PW1 to 3 have been cross examined in detail by the defence counsel.

During the cross examination, PW1 to 3 have admitted that entire boundary of the forest is bounded by trenches except the entry by near the base camp. PW3 during his cross examination testified that the scene of offence shall be reached only on foot. PW.2 also narrated that they reached to the scene of offence by foot. If the entire scene of offence are bounded by the trenches and one has to reach the scene of offence by foot, the prosecution failed to explain how the accused is alleged to have entered the forest with bullock cart.

18. During course of chief examination PW.1 deposed that when they tried to reach scene of offence, some unknown offenders escaped from the scene of offence and PW2 also corroborated the same saying that some unknown offenders escaped from the scene of offence and PW3 testified that one person escaped from the scene of offence and Ex.P1 discloses that the smugglers escaped from the scene of offence. The case of prosecution is that only accused committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has not made efforts to clear the inconsistency cropped in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3.

19. According to PW.1, they left the zero point base camp on 28.8.2013 at about 10:00 p.m. and PW.2 deposed that they left the base camp at 1:00 a.m. on 27.8.2013. PW.3 testified that they left the zero point base camp at 1:00 a.m. on 27.8.2013. In fact, the alleged offence is said to have found at about 1:30 a.m.

There is inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 pertaining to the date of

CC.No.300/2014 8 19-04-2024

alleged offence and time of the alleged offence. If the evidence of PW.2 and

P.W.3 are taken into consideration, they left base camp at 1:00 a.m., and according to PW.1, they left the base camp at 1:00 a.m., and the prosecution case is they found bullock cart at about 1:30 a.m. There is mismatch to the evidence of PW.1 to that of PW.2 and PW.3 and prosecution failed to explain the inconsistency cropped in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3.

20. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused was voluntarily surrendered before Forest Range Officer, Velugode Range and the accused statement has been recorded under which the accused is said to have admitted his guilt. In fact, the PW1 to PW3 did not see the accused at the scene of offence and they did not observe the accused leaving from the scene of offence and as per the

Special Proceedings which is noted that some of the smugglers have escaped from the scene of offence on observing the Forest Officials. Except the confession by the accused alone, there is nothing to connect the accused to the offence alleged to have occurred at Tokala rastha at about 1:30 a.m., on 27-8-2013. In the absence of corroborative evidence it is not safe to proceed against the accused solely on the basis of his confession before the Forest Range Officer, Velugode. Admittedly the alleged offence occurred at about 1:30 a.m., in the mid night and there is no possibility that the forest officials could see the accused and it is not the case of the prosecution that they have seen the accused at the scene of offence.

21. Learned A.P.P argued that by virtue of Judgment in E.C. Richard Vs Forest

Range Officer (AIR 1958 MADRAS 31) the forest official cannot be considered as police officers and therefore, the confession to forest official is admissible and it is not hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and the accused herein confessed the offence under Ex.P3. It is true the Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the

Forest Officers are not conferred with powers of an officer in charge of a police station and they cannot by any means be considered police officers under the

Criminal Procedure Code and Section 25 of the Evidence Act cannot apply to them. The Hon’ble High Court was referring Madras Forest Act and not A.P Forest

Act and herein the case, Ex.P3 is received through PW.2 and the accused is alleged

CC.No.300/2014 9 19-04-2024

to have confessed in presence of punch witnesses namely Sri Anki Reddy, Sri G.

Amroju, Sri Chandraiah and Babu Rao and none of them is examined by the prosecution and they had been examined by prosecution it would have been a different case. The Non-Examination of the punch witnesses is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

22. Forest Range Officer, Velugode laid down the charge sheet against accused

before the court and he played material role in the investigation. The accused is

claimed to have surrendered before him and he (Forest Range Officer) recorded the statement of the accused in the presence of forest section officer and though forest section officer is examined by the prosecution and prosecution failed to examine the Forest Range Officer and his evidence would have unrevealed so many things pertaining to the alleged confession of the accused and therefore, non-examination of Forest Range Officer, Velugode creates doubts over his recording the statement of the accused.

23. The case property has been seized under cover of Special Proceedings and they are seized in the absence of the accused. The prosecution witnesses did not see the accused at the scene of offence. The only basis of allegation against the accused is that he voluntarily surrendered before Forest Range Officer, Velugode.

In view of the discussion supra, the confession given to the Forest Range Officer is held to be not proved. So far as the allegation of the prosecution pertaining to entering into the sanctuary without permission by the accused, as the prosecution witnesses did not see the accused in sanctuary and there is nothing in the evidence of prosecution to connect the accused that he was present at the Sanctuary and therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused entered into the sanctuary without valid permission is also not proved.

24. Thus, regard had been to the circumstances of the crime, the only evidence of investigation officer and forest officials without any corroboration from independent and direct witnesses cannot be made as a basis of hand down conviction of accused under trial.

CC.No.300/2014 10 19-04-2024

25. In view of the above foregoing discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences which he was charged and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of A.P Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Under Section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act.

26. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences Punishable Under

Section 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of A.P Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life

Protection Act, 1972 and Under Section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act and he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision under section 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No order as to property, as no property was produced

before this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, Transcribed and typed by

him, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Sri V. Audhinarayana

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined) Prosecution Defence

PW1: S. Basheer Ahmed -None-

PW2: P.A. Shyam Sundar

PW3: P. Maddilety

Exhibits marked for

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Forest Special Proceedings dated 28-8-2013

Ex.P2: Form-C receipt dated 28-8-2013

Ex.P3: Panchanama dated 2-9-2013

Ex.P4: Report of Arrest dated 2-9-2013

CC.No.300/2014 11 19-04-2024

Ex.P5: POR.No.21/2013-2014(UDOR.No.21/2013-2014)

Ex.P6: Invoice dated 29-8-2013.

For Defence :

-NIL-

Material objects marked

For Prosecution: For Defence

-NIL -NIL-

Sd/-Sri V. Audhinarayana

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

// True Copy //

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur

CC.No.300/2014 12 19-04-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Dated 19-04-2024.

OffenceReport ofAppre-Date of CommenClose of SentencReasons for delay complainthensionrelease cement Triale or Remarks of on bailof trialOrder Accused 28-08- 28-08- 02-09-16-09-03-10-25-01-19-04--- 2013 201320132013 2023 2024 2024

Judgment in C.C.No.300/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

Complainant:- State through represented by Forest Range Officer, Velugode Range, Atmakur.

Accused:-

Patan Mabhu, S/o Patan Meerza, age 35 years R/o. Narayanapuram village, R/o. Agricultural labour, Caste:Muslim Bandi Atmakur (Mandal)

Offence : Illegally entered in to the Sanctuary area by cutting bamboos

Section of Law: 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of AP Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences Punishable Under Section 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) of A.P Forest Act, 1967 and Section 27 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Under Section 7, 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act and he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision under section 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No order as to property, as no property was produced before this court.

Sd/-Sri V.Audhinarayana

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

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

// True Copy //

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Nandyal

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur

CC.No.300/2014 13 19-04-2024

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur

CC.No.300/2014 14 19-04-2024

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Sri.V.Audhinarayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal

Thursday, the 31st day of August, 2023.

C.C. No. 437 /2022

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS. ... Complainant

-And-

1.Pallapu Venkateswarlu, age 37 years, S/o Sreeramulu, 2.Goddella Venkateswarlu, age 43 years, S/o Subbaiah, 3.Pallapu Venkata Pullaiah, age 46 years, S/o Naganna, 4.Pallapu Srinivasulu, age 46 years, S/o Tirupalu.

All are residents of Chindukuru Village, Gadivemula Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 28.08.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Y.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS has laid down the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.277 of 2021.

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

On 31-10-2021 at 21-30 hrs while Head Constable-PW3 was present in the Police Station and he received information about the selling of ID Arrack. The Head constable left the P.S along with Staff and reached beside Goddella Venkateswarlu House, Chindukuru village on that time four persons standing there with 4 white color plastic bags on seeing the police, the persons tried to skulk away from there on suspicious circumstances. Then the Head Constable prevented their escape with the assistance of staff by surrounding them and secured first person by keeping the remaining person with staff at a little

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022 distance, on enquiry the four persons separately, they disclosed their name as Pallapu Venkateswarlu, Goddela Venkateswarlu, Pallapu

Venkata Pullaiah and Pallapu Srinivasulu and all they all are addicted to bad habits from the last two weeks they purchased ID arrack from unknown person at Nemallakunta Village, Bandi Atmakuru mandal at the cost of Rs.300/- per one liter and sells the same at their village Rs.400/- per liter. As usual, Accused No.1 purchased 08 liters, A2 purchased 10 liters, A3 purchased 07 liters and A4 purchased 05 liters , total 30 liters of ID arrack from unknown person while selling the same here they were caught by police. On examination of plastic bags it smells with arrack and contained 08 liters of ID arrack from A1, 10 liters of ID arrack from

A2, 07 liters of ID arrack from A3, 05 liters of ID arrack from A4. The head constable-PW3 tried to get panchayathdars through police constable but in vain. Later, the Head constable noticed the plastic bags in white color and total bags contained 30 liters of ID arrack. The Head constable have drawn the sample of ID arrack into four bottles from the plastic covers for sending the same to the chemical analysis. The Head constable arrested the accused and seized 30 liters of ID arrack under police proceedings.

Basing on Police Proceedings, SI of Police registered the case in Crime No.277/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act and took up investigation.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

They were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusations leveled against them and charge framed for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 was read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. The learned APP has

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022 given up the evidence of LW3 and LW5 and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witness were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied and did not propose any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:- "Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

(Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

9. POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked ExP1.Police Proceedings, Ex.P2 is

FIR, Ex.P3 is Analysis report. Mo.1 4 Sample bottle in CPR.No.218/2022.

10.PW1 is the Police Constable who claimed to have assited

PW3 in conducting the police proceeding and seizing the property and arresting the accused. In his chief examination, he deposed that he accompanied PW3 on 31.10.2021, they left the police station and reached at Goddella Venkateswarlu house, Chindukur Village and found the accused four persons and participating in the police proceeding.

Ex.P1 is received through him which is signature on the police proceeding. In cross examination, he admitted that Ex.P1 does not contain whom he approached to act as a mediator.

11.PW2 is another police constable who claimed to have accompanied PW1 and PW3 to the scene of offence and participated in the alleged seizure and arrest of the accused. He deposed as per his participation in the allegled seizure and arrest of the accused.

In the cross examination, he also admitted that Ex.P1 does not contain whom they brought to act as mediator.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022

12.PW3 is investigating officer who deposed that on 31.10.2021 while he was at Police Station, he received credible information, on that he along with PW1, and PW2 rushed to the scene of offence and he deputed to PW1 to secure the mediators but nobody came forward, therefore, under cover police proceeding, he seized the property and arrested the accused, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 received through him. Ex.P2 is First

Information Report, Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis report. MO1 is sample bottles in CPR.No.218/2022 is also received through him.

In the cross examination, he admitted that he he does not go to the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW2 and did not conduct police proceedings and he is the complainant as well as investigating officer in the alleged crime and also admitted that the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses.

13.The prosecution is required to prove the seizure of MO1 from the possession of A1 to A4 in order to prove guilt of the accused. MO1 is sample bottle in CPR No.218/2022 seized under the cover of police proceedings. PW1 to PW3 admitted that the policle proceedings does not contain whom they approached to act as mediators in the village and there is no record to show that whom the PW1 asked to act as mediators. In addition to that PW3 is not only complainant but also participated most of the investigation. Except the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 who are the police witnesses, there is no independent evidence to support the evidence of PW1 to PW3.

14.It is not safe to believe the evidence of PW1 to PW3 who are police witnesses in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused and accordingly the accused is entitled benefit of doubt.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.218/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31 st day of August, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:K.Ramachari None P.W.2:M.Chennaiah P.W.3: G.Vekateswarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Chemical Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :4 Sample bottles in CPR No.218/2022

PJCJ NDL,

FAC. JMFC NDL.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No. 437 /2022

1. Date of offence31-10-2021

2.Date of report or Complaint31-10-2021

3.Date of apprehension of accused31-10-2021

4.Date of release on bail09-11-2021

5.Date of commencement of trial01-08-2023

6.Date of close of the trial08-08-2023

7.Date of sentence of order 31.08.2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: On 31.05.2022 this case was taken cognizance of offence u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP (Amendment Act), 2020.

On 25.07.2023 the accused No.1 to 4 are examined U/s.239

Cr.P.C.Accusations leveled agaisnt them and charge framed for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Amendment Act. On 01-08-2023 PW1 is examined; on 08-08-2023 PW.2 and PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P3 got marked; and MO1 is marked and prosecution evidence closed. On 28.08.2023 the accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. On the same day heard arguments on both sides and posted the matter for judgment. On 31.08.2023 Judgment pronounced.

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Gadivemula PS. Accused1.Pallapu Venkateswarlu, age 37 years, S/o Sreeramulu, 2.Goddella Venkateswarlu, age 43 years, S/o Subbaiah, 3.Pallapu Venkata Pullaiah, age 46 years, S/o Naganna, 4.Pallapu Srinivasulu, age 46 years, S/o Tirupalu. All are residents of Chindukuru Village, Gadivemula Mandal. Offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.437/2022 the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.218/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.strate of First Class,

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Sri.V.Audhinarayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal Tuesday, the 26th day of September, 2023.

C.C. No.2 20 /2022

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS. ... Complainant

-And-

1.Midde Maddilety, S/o Thimmaiah, age 46 yrs, 2.Pasula Sri Krishunudu, S/o Late Chennaiah, age 43 yrs 3.Rampuram Ranga Swamy, S/o Late Pedda Ranga Swamy, age 29 yrs, 4.Bhasyam Dathathreya Goudu, S/o Late Nagaiah, age 46 yrs.

5.Suryapalli Ravi Kumar Goudu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana Goudu, age 36 yrs, All are residents of Gadigarevula village, Gadivemula Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 22.09.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the accused; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS has laid down the charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.271 of 2021.

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

On 27-10-2021 at 17.30 hrs while S.I of Police was present in the Police Station and he received information about the selling of arrack. The S.I of Police left the police station along with staff and reached beside Kundu River, Gadigarevula village, on that time five persons standing there with five white color plastic bags on seeing the police, the persons tried to skulk away from there on suspicious

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022 circumstances. Then S.I of Police prevented their escape with the assistance of staff by surrounding them S.I of Police enquired five persons separately and they disclosed their name and stated that they purchased ID arrack from unknown person at Nemallakunta village,

Bandi Atmakuru Mandal at the cost of Rs.300/- per one liter and selling the same at Rs.400/- per liter. As usual, A1 to A5 each purchased 05 liters ID arrack from unknown person while selling the same they were caught by police. On examination of plastic bag it smells with arrack and contained 05 liters of ID arrack from each bag. The S.I of Police tried to get panchayathdras through police constable but in vain. Later, S.I of

Police noticed the plastic bags in white color and total bags contained 25 liters ID arrack. Later, the S.I of Police arrested the accused and seized 25 liters of ID arrack under police proceedings.

Basing on Police Proceedings, SI of Police registered the case in

Crime No.271/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act and took up investigation.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused No.1 to 5.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 5, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusations leveled against them and charge framed for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 was read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witness were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied and did

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022 not propose any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:- "Whether prosecution established guilt of accused

No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e)

of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

9.POINT:

In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1 is marked in CPR No.62/2022.

10.PW1 is the police constable who is said to have accompanied PW3 to the scene of offence. PW1 deposed that on 27-10-2021 at about 17.30 hours, he accompanied PW2 and PW3 and reached at Kundu River

Gadigarevula Village and found five persons with a plastic cover. On seeing the police party the persons tried to skulk away and therefore PW1 and

PW2 surrounded them and caught hold them before PW3. PW3 enquired all of them and they have disclosed their identity as A1 to A5 and PW3 examined the each cover which contained 05 liters of ID arrack, thereafter

S.I of Police drawn the sample in order sent the same to the chemical analysis and arrested the accused persons under cover of police proceedings. Ex.P1 is a police proceedings.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that they does not examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence place.

They does not go to the scene of offence place and did not seize any property.

11.PW2 is Head constable who claimed to have assisted PW3 and reached to the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW3. PW2 deposed his participation along with PW1 and PW3 and also lifting of the samples by

PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW2 admitted that they does not examine any independent witneses at the scene of offence place.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022

12.PW3 is the investigating officer who is said to have been left the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW2 on 27-10-2021 at 17.30 hours, and participated the seizure and arrest of the accused. Ex.P2 is the FIR and ExP3 is the chemical analysis report are received through PW3. MO1 is the in CPR.No.62/2022 is also received through PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is located 7 to 08 kilo meters from the police station and also admitted that he was the complainant as well as investigating officer in this case.

13.The seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution. Admittedly, Ex.P1 does not disclose whom PW1 approached and requested to act as mediators. The alleged scene of offence is located at Kundu river, Gadigarevula village, there is every possibility to secure the mediators from the village. It appears that

PW3 did not make any effort to secure the mediators.

14.PW1 and PW2 are the police witnesses and they have supported the case of prosecution. There is no independent witness to corroborate evidence of PW1 to PW3. Therefore, it is not safe to go against the accused persons, basing on uncorroborated evidence of PW1 to PW3. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused.

15.In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR

No.62/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of September,

2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:Tejanath Reddy None P.W.2:D.Hussain P.W.3:M.Sreedhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings Ex.P2:FIR NIL Ex.P3 :Chemical analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :Sample bottles in CPR No.62/2022

PJCJ NDL,

FAC. JMFC NDL.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.220/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No.220/2022

1. Date of offence27-10-2021

2.Date of report or Complaint27-10-2021

3.Date of apprehension of accused28-10-2021

4.Date of release on bail3-11-2021

5.Date of commencement of trial20-06-2023

6.Date of close of the trial20-09-2023

7.Date of sentence of order 26-09-2023

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Gadivemula PS. Accused1.Midde Maddilety, S/o Thimmaiah, age 46 yrs, 2.Pasula Sri Krishunudu, S/o Late Chennaiah, age 43 yrs 3.Rampuram Ranga Swamy, S/o Late Pedda Ranga Swamy, age 29 yrs, 4.Bhasyam Dathathreya Goudu, S/o Late Nagaiah, age 46 yrs.

5.Suryapalli Ravi Kumar Goudu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana Goudu, age 36 yrs, All are residents of Gadigarevula village, Gadivemula Mandal.

Offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused are found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.62/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

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

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.448/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Sri.V.Audhinarayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal Tuesday, the 26th day of September, 2023.

C.C. No. 448 /2022

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS. ... Complainant

-And-

Bilavath Kupendra Naik, S/o Narasimha Naik age 40 yrs, r/o Gunthakandala village, Velugodu

mandal. ... Accused

This case is coming before me on 22.09.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.P.Venkateswarlu and Smt.S.Vijaya Nirmala, learned counsel for the accused; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS has laid down the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.231 of 2021.

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

On 26-07-2021 at 16.30 hrs while S.I of Police was present in the Police Station and he received information about the transporting of arrack. The S.I of Police left the police station along with staff and reached HP petrol bunk while conducting vehicle checking at 17.00 hrs found one person coming opposite to him on motor cycle having one white color plastic cover on motor cycle, on seeing the police, the person tried to skulk away from there on suspicious circumstances. The S.I of

Police prevented his escape with the assistance of staff by surrounding him on S.I of Police enquiry he disclosed his name and stated that he purchased ID arrack from unknown person at Gummitham Thanda village, orvakallu Mandal at the cost of Rs.100/- per one liter and selling the same at his village Rs.300/- per liter. As usual he purchased 20 liters of ID arrack from unknown person while transporting the same to his

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.448/2022 village caught by police. On examination of plastic cover it smells with arrack and contained two plastic covers each cover contained 10 liters both covers have 20 liters of ID arrack. The S.I of Police tried to get panchayathdras through police constable but in vain. Later, S.I of Police noticed the plastic cover in white color and contained 20 liters ID arrack.

Later, the S.I of Police arrested the accused and seized 20 liters of ID arrack under police proceedings.

Basing on Police Proceedings, SI of Police registered the case in

Crime No.231/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act and took up investigation.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusations leveled against him and charge framed for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witness were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:- "Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

(Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.448/2022

9.POINT:

In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1 is marked in CPR No.664/2021.

10.PW1 is the police constable who is said to have accompanied PW3 to the scene of offence. PW1 deposed that he accompanied PW3 and reached to the scene of offence near HP petrol bunk, and started conducting the vehicle checking and found one person with a white color plastic cover and

PW3 has deputed PW2 to secure mediators but in vain. Thereafter, PW3 verified the plastic cover which contained 20 litters of ID arrack and PW3 has drawn the sample and arrested the accused under cover of police proceedings.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that they seized the contraband under cover of police proceedings. PW1 further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

11.PW2 is another constable who claimed to have assisted PW3 and reached to the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW3. PW2 deposed his participation along with PW1 and PW3 and also lifting of the samples by

PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW2 also admitted that PW3 is the same person who participated in the alleged seizure and also conducted the investigation and he also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and the MO1 seized under cover of police proceedings.

12.PW3 is the investigating officer who is said to have been left the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW2 on 26-07-2021 at 16.30 hours, and participated the seizure and arrest of the accused. Ex.P1 is the police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the chemical analysis are received through PW3. MO1 is the in CPR.No.664/2021 is also received through

PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and the contraband seized under cover of police proceedings.

13.The seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.448/2022 busy locality and Ex.P1 does not disclose whom PW2 approached and requested to act as mediators. The alleged scene of offence is located in the

HP Petrol bunk, gadivemula village, there is every possibility to secure the mediators from the village. It appears that PW3 did not make any effort to secure the mediators.

14.PW1 and PW2 are the police witnesses and they have supported the case of prosecution. There is no independent witness to corroborate evidence of PW1 to PW3. Therefore, it is not safe to go against the accused basing on uncorroborated evidence of PW1 to PW3. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.664/2021 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of September,

2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:M.Chennaiah None P.W.2:K.Yelliswaraiah P.W.3:M.Sreedhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : chemical analysis

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :Sample bottles in CPR No.664/2021

PJCJ NDL,

FAC. JMFC NDL.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.448/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No. 448 /2022

1. Date of offence26-07-2021

2.Date of report or Complaint26-07-2021

3.Date of apprehension of accused27-07-2021

4.Date of release on bail02-08-2021

5.Date of commencement of trial08-08-2023

6.Date of close of the trial20-09-2023

7.Date of sentence of order 26-09-2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: This case was taken cognizance of offence u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP (Amendment Act), 2020. On 07.08.2023 the accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.Accusations leveled agaisnt them and charge framed. On 08-08-2023 PW1 is examined; on 18.08- 2023 PW2 is examined and on 20.09.2023 PW3 is examined and Ex.P1 to P3 got marked; and MO1 is marked and prosecution evidence closed. On 22.09.2023 the accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. On the same day heard arguments on both sides and posted the matter for judgment. On 26.09.2023 Judgment pronounced. ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Gadivemula PS. AccusedBilavath Kupendra Naik, S/o Narasimha Naik age 40 yrs, r/o Gunthakandala village, Velugodu mandal. Offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.664/2021 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

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

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.952/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Sri.V.Audhinarayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2023.

C.C. No.952/2022

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS. ... Complainant

-And-

Yerralla Pedda Samanna, age 49 years, S/o. Adam, r/o Pesaravai Village, Gadivemula Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 19.09.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.S.Vijaya Nirmala, learned counsel for the accused; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Gadivemula PS has laid down the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.48 of 2022.

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

On 04-03-2022 at 19.30 hours, while Head Constable by name D.Hussain (LW3) was present in the police station and he received information about the selling of ID arrack. Then the Head constable left the police station along with his staff and reached beside Yerralla Pedda

Samanna house, Pesaravai Village on that time one person standing there with one white color plastic bag on seeing the police, the person tried to skulk away from there on suspicious circumstances. Then LW3-

D.Hussain prevented his escape with the assistance of staff by surrounding him and on enquiry the accused disclosed his name and stated that he addicted to bad habits from the last two weeks he purchased ID arrack from unknown person at Nemallakuntla Village,

Bandiatmakur mandl at the cost of Rs.300/- per one liter and selling the same at his village Rs.400/- per liter. As usual he purchased 05 liters of

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.952/2022

ID arrack from unknown person while selling the same here he was caught by police. Later, D.Hussain (LW3) head constable noticed the plastic bag in white color and contained 05 liters ID arrack. The head constable have drawn the sample of ID arrack into one bottle from the plastic bag for sending the same to the chemical analysis. The head constable-LW3 arrested the accused and seized 05 liters ID arrack under police proceedings.

Basing on Police Proceedings, Head constable LW3-D.Hussain registered the case in Crime No.48/2022 for the offence punishable

U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and took up investigation.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusations leveled against him and charge framed for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P (Amendment) Act, 2020 was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4 and LW5 and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witness were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:- "Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.952/2022 (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

9.POINT:

In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1 is marked in CPR No.459/2022.

10.PW1 is the police constable who is said to have accompanied PW3 to the scene of offence. PW1 deposed that he accompanied PW3 and reached to the scene of offence which is located near Pesaravai Village and found a male person with a white color plastic bag and PW3 has deputed PW2 to secure mediators but in vain. Thereafter, PW3 verified the bag which contained 05 litters of ID arrack and PW3 has drawn the sample and arrested the accused under cover of police proceedings.

During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that PW3 who investigated the matter also participated in the alleged seizure. PW1 further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and MO1 is seized under cover of police proceedings.

11.PW2 is another constable who claimed to have assisted PW3 and reached to the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW3. PW2 deposed his participation along with PW1 and PW3 and also lifting of the samples by

PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW2 also admitted that PW3 is the same person who participated in the alleged seizure and also conducted the investigation and he also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and the MO1 seized under cover of police proceedings.

12.PW3 is the investigating officer who is said to have been left the scene of offence along with PW1 and PW2 on 04-003-2022 at 19.30 hours, and participated the seizure and arrest of the accused. Ex.P1 is the police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the Analysis report are received through PW3. MO1 is the in CPR.No.459/2022 is also received through

PW3. During the course of cross examination, PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and contraband has been seized under cover of police proceedings.

13.The seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.952/2022 busy locality and Ex.P1 does not disclose whom PW2 approached and requested to act as mediators. The alleged scene of offence is located in the

Pesaravai village, there is every possibility to secure the mediators from the village. It appears that PW3 did not make any effort to secure the mediators.

14.PW1 and PW2 are the police witnesses and they have supported the case of prosecution. There is no independent witness to corroborate evidence of PW1 to PW3. Therefore, it is not safe to go against the accused basing on uncorroborated evidence of PW1 to PW3. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020 and she is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.459/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of September,

2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:M.Chinna Madhu None P.W.2:M.Srinivasulu P.W.3:D.Hussain

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Chemical Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :Sample bottles in CPR No.459/2022

PJCJ NDL,

FAC. JMFC NDL.

J.M.F.C.Court, Nandyal. C.C.No.952/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No.952/2022

1. Date of offence04-03-2022

2.Date of report or Complaint04-03-2022

3.Date of apprehension of accused05-03-2022

4.Date of release on bail10-03-2022

5.Date of commencement of trial14-09-2023

6.Date of close of the trial14-09-2023

7.Date of sentence of order 20-09-2023

Explanation of delay and remarks: This case was taken cognizance of offence u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP (Amendment Act), 2020. On 15.09.2022 the accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.Accusations leveled agaisnt them and charge framed. On 14-09-2023 PW1 to PW3 were examined; and Ex.P1 to P3 got marked; and MO1 is marked and prosecution evidence closed. On 19.09.2023 the accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. On the same day heard arguments on both sides and posted the matter for judgment. On 20.09.2023 Judgment pronounced. ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Gadivemula PS. AccusedYerralla Pedda Samanna, age 49 years, S/o. Adam, r/o Pesaravai Village, Gadivemula Mandal.

Offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act. FindingAccused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR No.459/2022 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

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