Smt V.Divya

Calendar and Judgment C.C. No.395/2022 District of KurnoolDt. 07.04.2026 Calendar of cases tried by the APKU0F000648202

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur2

Report orApprehensiReleaseCommenceClosure ofExplanation of delay Complaintonon Bailmenttrialand remarks of Accusedof trial 15.04.2022 15.04.202220.04.202226.03.202413.02.2026Prosecution did not produce witnesses

ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Muchumarri Police Station

AccusedKanugala Pedda Venkataswamy, 66 years, Son of Chinna Seshanna, Resident of Nehru Nagar village, Pagidyala mandal, Nandyal district. Offence7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act

Finding Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act

Sentence Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- V. Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur.

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

1 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt V.Divya, B.A, LL.B(Hons.), LL.M

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 395/2022

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Muchumarri Police Station … Complainant

And

Kanugala Pedda Venkataswamy, 66 years, Son of Chinna Seshanna, Resident of Nehru Nagar village, Pagidyala mandal, Nandyal district. .… Accused

This case is coming before me for adjudication in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri C. Venkateswarlu, Advocate

for the accused. Upon hearing them, as the matter has stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.Sub Inspector of Police, Muchumarri Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15.04.2022 at 4.30 pm,

L.W.1/S.Md.Rafi, and L.W.2/P.Eswaraiah , police caught hold of accused in possession of 30 liters of I.D arrack and when questioned, accused stated that he is about to sell the same for profit. To that effect, police prepared a Police

Proceedings and based on it, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2022 for the offence under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act and seized 30 liters of I.D arrack after collecting sample. Thereafter, sample was sent for chemical 2 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022 analysis. During the course of investigation, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample of seized property is "Illictly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health". After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against accused for the offence under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P

Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 7 (a) r/w 8

(e) of A.P.P Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. he denied the contents of the charge sheet and documents relied on by the prosecution. After hearing and on consideration, a charge for the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and

Exs. P1 to 4 and M.O.1 marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material available against the accused was read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty. When accused was called to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act beyond all

reasonable doubts?

3 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022

10.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted that-

a) The accused was found in possession of 30 liters of I.D arrack in contravention of law and in support of the same, Police Proceedings prepared by the police.

b) Oral and documentary evidence clearly established the case of prosecution.

c) Evidence on record is cogent and clinching to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, pray to punish the accused.

11.Per contra, learned counsel for defence submitted that-

a) There are several contradictions in between Police Proceedings and the evidence deposed before the Court.

b) Police did not follow section 100 Cr.P.C while seizing the property.

c) Police registered false cases for statistical purposes and that accused is falsely implicated.

d) Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and so is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.Considering the entire material available on record and on scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence and arguments submitted by both the counsels, this Court is of the following view:

A. Prosecution examined the police official as P.W.1 and got marked police proceedings as Ex.P.1, FIR as Ex.P.2, Chemical analysis report as Ex.P.3 and Attested copy of destruction panchanama dt.28.07.2022 as Ex.P.4.

B. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 15.04.2022 , police went to K.C

Canal Bridge, Nehru Nagar village, Pagidyala madnal on credible information and there caught hold of accused in possession of 30 liters of

I.D arrack and prepared Ex.P1 Police Proceedings and submitted Ex.P2 4 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022 original F.I.R to the Court and basing on Ex.P1, collected sample and seized remaining property and sample was sent for chemical analysis and later received Ex.P3 chemical analysis report and later destroyed the property under Ex.P4 Attested copy of destruction Panchanama dt.28.07.2022.

C. PW1 in his cross examination denied that scene of offence is busy locality and that accused was falsely implicated for statistical purpose by creating the record in the police station on the instructions of higher officials.

D. As per Ex.P.3, M.O.1 is "Illictly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health".

E. Confession to or made before Police Officer:

The entire case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of 30 liters of I.D arrack and he confessed before Police about this crime. In view of the bar under sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, such confession shall not be proved against the accused.

F. Procedure for arrest, search and seizure:

Section 59 of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 lays down the procedure for arrest, search etc, as follows:

“Any person arrested under this Act, shall be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to arrests, detention in custody, searches, summonses, warrants of arrests, search warrants, the production of persons arrested and the disposal of things seized, shall apply, as far as may be, to all actions taken in these respects under this Act.” 5 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022

G. Sec.100 Cr.P.C specifically states that, “It is the duty of the investigating officer to secure any responsible local inhabitant to act as mediator for search and if at all any person refused to act as mediator, written requisition can be given to said person and if he refused even after that he can be punished in accordance with law.”

H. As per the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that the investigating agency failed to exercise the duty vested upon them to secure any local inhabitants or officials available nearby to act as mediators. It is also clear from the evidence that no written requisition or summons were issued to local inhabitants to act as mediators which raises clear suspicion with regard to the case of prosecution.

I.Law is settled with regard to sole testimony of a police official. Hon’ble

Apex Court has time and again reiterated the importance of considering the credence of the witness.

J.Hon’ble High Court of A.P in 'Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of

A.P which was reported in 2002(1) ALD(Crl.)347(A.P)' laid down :-

“When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a punch witness, the police should have resort to section.100(4) of Cr.P.C and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials that no one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

K. No doubt it is settled legal position that merely on the ground that no independent witnesses were present at the time of search, evidence of police officials need not be looked into with suspicion but it is equally 6 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022 important that evidence of police officials shall be scrutinized on par with other witnesses to inspire confidence.

L. Apparently, there are no efforts made by the investigating officers to secure any of the local inhabitants. The excuse given by the police that they made efforts but could not secure any mediators has no basis as there is no evidence on record to establish that police served notices to the local inhabitants but they refused to attend as mediators.

M. In view of the settled legal position, I hold that the investigating agency has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 100(4)

Cr.P.C and the evidence given by the police did not inspire confidence.

Failure of the prosecution to comply with Section 59 of A.P. Excise Act and

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused and raises doubt as to the case of the prosecution.

N. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence this is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act and accordingly accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C., and thereafter, shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

7 of 9JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 395/2022

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: P.Nagarjuna - NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1: Police proceedings - NIL- Ex.P-2: First Information Report Ex.P-3:Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P4: Attested copy of destruction Panchanama dt.28.07.2022

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : sample bottle

Sd/-V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur

Digitally Signed by

VEERLA DIVYA

VEERLA DIVYA

Date: 2026.04.07 16:14:14 +0530

C.C. No.277/2023 Calendar and Judgment

Dt. 07.04.2026

District of Kurnool APKU0F000435202 Calendar of cases tried by 3

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur

Report orApprehensiReleaseCommenceClosure ofExplanation of delay Complaintonon Bailmenttrialand remarks of Accusedof trial 25-11-202125.11.202129.11.20217.3.20259.1.2026Prosecution did not produce witnesses

ComplainantState represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Nandikotkur

AccusedGujjula Naresh, Son of G.Linganna, 32 years, R/o Prathakota village, Pagidyala mandal. Offence34 (a) of A.P.E.Act

Finding Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act

Sentence Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- V. Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur.

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

1 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt V.Divya, B.A, LL.B(Hons.), LL.M

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 277/2023

Between: State represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Nandikotkur … Complainant

And

Gujjula Naresh, Son of G.Linganna, 32 years, R/o Prathakota village, Pagidyala mandal. .… Accused

This case is coming before me for adjudication in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri MV. Bala Nagaiah Gupta, Advocate for the accused. Upon hearing them, as the matter has stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Nandikotkur has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 25-11-2021 at 05.00

PM, while on raids, police caught hold of accused in possession of 12 nibs of OK

VSOP Brandy and when questioned, accused stated that he is about to sell the same for profit. To that effect, police prepared a special Report and based on it, registered a case in Crime No.345/2021 for the offence under section 34 (a) of

A.P.E.Act and seized 12 nibs of OK VSOP Brandy after collecting sample.

Thereafter, sample was sent for chemical analysis. During the course of investigation, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample of seized property is Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against 2 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023 accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 34 (a) of

A.P.E.Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. he denied the contents of the charge sheet and documents relied on by the prosecution. After hearing and on consideration, a charge for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and

Exs. P1 to 4 and M.O.1 marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material available against the accused was read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty. When accused was called to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act beyond all reasonable

doubts?

10.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted that-

a) The accused was found in possession of 12 nibs of OK VSOP Brandy in contravention of law and in support of the same, special Report prepared 3 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023 by the police.

b) Oral and documentary evidence clearly established the case of prosecution.

c) Evidence on record is cogent and clinching to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, pray to punish the accused.

11.Per contra, learned counsel for defence submitted that-

a) There are several contradictions in between special Report and the evidence deposed before the Court.

b) Police did not follow section 100 Cr.P.C while seizing the property.

c) Police registered false cases for statistical purposes and that accused is falsely implicated.

d) Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and so is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.Considering the entire material available on record and on scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence and arguments submitted by both the counsels, this Court is of the following view:

A. Prosecution examined the police official as P.W.1 and got marked Special report as Ex.P.1, Original FIR as Ex.P.2, Chemical analysis report as

Ex.P.3 and attested copy of destruction proceedings dt.26.07.2022 as

Ex.P.4 and attested copy of destruction panchanama dt.23.08.2022 as

Ex.P.5.

B. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 25-11-2021, while on raids, police went infront of accused house, Prathakota village of Pagidyala Mandal and there caught hold of accused in possession of 12 nibs of OK VSOP Brandy and prepared Ex.P1 special Report and submitted Ex.P2 original F.I.R to the Court and basing on Ex.P1, collected sample and seized remaining property and sample was sent for chemical analysis and later received 4 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023

Ex.P3 chemical analysis report and later received Ex.P4 Attested copy of destruction proceedings dt.26.07.2022 and destroyed the property under

Ex.P5 Attested copy of destruction Panchanama dt.23.08.2022.

C. PW1 in his cross examination denied that scene of offence is busy locality and that accused was falsely implicated for statistical purpose by creating the record in the police station on the instructions of higher officials.

D. As per Ex.P.3, M.O.1 is Indian Liquor.

E. Confession to or made before Police Officer:

The entire case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of 12 nibs of OK VSOP Brandy and he confessed before Police about this crime. In view of the bar under sections 25 and 26 of the Indian

Evidence Act, such confession shall not be proved against the accused.

F. Procedure for arrest, search and seizure:

Section 59 of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 lays down the procedure for arrest, search etc, as follows:

“Any person arrested under this Act, shall be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to arrests, detention in custody, searches, summonses, warrants of arrests, search warrants, the production of persons arrested and the disposal of things seized, shall apply, as far as may be, to all actions taken in these respects under this Act.”

G. Sec.100 Cr.P.C specifically states that, “It is the duty of the investigating officer to secure any responsible local inhabitant to act as mediator for search and if 5 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023 at all any person refused to act as mediator, written requisition can be given to said person and if he refused even after that he can be punished in accordance with law.”

H. As per the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that the investigating agency failed to exercise the duty vested upon them to secure any local inhabitants or officials available nearby to act as mediators. It is also clear from the evidence that no written requisition or summons were issued to local inhabitants to act as mediators which raises clear suspicion with regard to the case of prosecution.

I.Law is settled with regard to sole testimony of a police official. Hon’ble

Apex Court has time and again reiterated the importance of considering the credence of the witness.

J.Hon’ble High Court of A.P in 'Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of

A.P which was reported in 2002(1) ALD(Crl.)347(A.P)' laid down :-

“When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a punch witness, the police should have resort to section.100(4) of Cr.P.C and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials that no one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

K. No doubt it is settled legal position that merely on the ground that no independent witnesses were present at the time of search, evidence of police officials need not be looked into with suspicion but it is equally important that evidence of police officials shall be scrutinized on par with other witnesses to inspire confidence.

L. Apparently, there are no efforts made by the investigating officers to 6 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023 secure any of the local inhabitants. The excuse given by the police that they made efforts but could not secure any mediators has no basis as there is no evidence on record to establish that police served notices to the local inhabitants but they refused to attend as mediators.

M. In view of the settled legal position, I hold that the investigating agency has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 100(4)

Cr.P.C and the evidence given by the police did not inspire confidence.

Failure of the prosecution to comply with Section 59 of A.P. Excise Act and

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused and raises doubt as to the case of the prosecution.

N. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence this is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.E.Act and accordingly accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C., and thereafter, shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: A.Ramesh Reddy - NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

7 of 9 JMFC, Nandikotkur C.C. No. 277/2023

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1: Police proceedings - NIL- Ex.P-2: First Information Report Ex.P-3:Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P4 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings, dt.26.07.2022 Ex.P.5 : Attested copy of destruction panchanama dt.23.08.2022

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : sample bottle

Sd/-V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandikotkur

Digitally Signed by

VEERLA DIVYA

VEERLA DIVYA

Date: 2026.04.07 16:14:14 +0530

OS No.129/2023 1JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: ALUR

Present : Smt V.Divya,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur. Wednesday, the 27th day of March, 2024

Original Suit No.129/2023

Between: - 1.Bariki Drakshayani, W/o Yenkanna, aged 47 years, r/o Yellarthi village, Holagunda mandal.

2.Bariki Vishalakshi, W/o Krishna, aged 47 years, r/o Balakunde village, Tekkalakota Post, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District.

3.Bariki Sharada, W/o Basavaraju, Hindu, 45 years, r/o Chittavadige Area, Hospet Post & Taluk, Vijayanagara (D).

4.Bariki Nagamma @ Vanajakshi, Hindu, W/o Gadilinga, 33 years, r/o Oddati village, Kolar District.

5.Bariki Nagaraju, S/o Late Bariki Venkoba, Hindu, aged 33 years, r/o Yellarthi village, Holagunda mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiffs

Vs.

1.Bariki Meenakshi, W/o Late Venkoba, Hindu, aged 60 years.

2.Lakshmi @ Gowramma, W/o B.Kalinga, Hindu, aged 36 years.

Both are r/o H.No.76, Bhavi Road, Near

Honnur Swamy Katta, B.C. Colony,

Ibrahimpura village & Post, Bellary (D), Karnataka State.… Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for plaintiff evidence in the presence of

Sri K.Ravi, Advocates for plaintiff and defendant being set exparte. Upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, as the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by plaintiffs seeking to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 5/6th share i.e., 1/6th share each in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds by appointing Advocate Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties into six equal

OS No.129/2023 2JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur shares and allot five such shares i.e., 1/6th share each to each plaintiffs by metes and bounds and for costs and such other reliefs.

2.Brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that 1st defendant is mother of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant No.2. Originally plaint schedule properties belongs to ancestors of Bariki

Venkoba who died on 2-2-2010 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants as his only legal heirs. Ever since then all of them are in joint and constructive possession of said properties and 1st defendant is managing the property being Kartha. While so, plaintiffs came to know that 1st defendant gifted item No.1 of plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant under registered gift deed, dt.21-10-2020 without the consent and knowledge of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested and demanded the 1st defendant to divide the plaint schedule properties into six equal shares and allot five such shares to plaintiffs, but she kept postponing on one or the other pretext and so plaintiffs got issued legal notice, dt.20-10-2022, but the defendants failed to comply the same. Hence, the suit.

3.Though ample opportunity is given, defendants failed to appear before the court and no representation on their behalf. Service held sufficient. Hence, the Defendants are set exparte.

4.Plaintiff in support of their contention, examined 4th plaintiff as P.W.1 and in her chief affidavit reiterated the same facts as in plaint and got marked Ex.A.1 Genealogical tree of the plaintiffs and defendants, Ex.A.2 Notarized affidavit of non availability certificate of plaintiff No.1, dt.13-9-2022, Ex.A.3 Office copy of legal notice, dt.20-10-2022 along with postal receipts, Ex.A.4 Certified copy of registered gift deed, dt.21-10-2020 executed by D.1 in favour of D.3, Ex.A.5 Certified copy of R.H.

5.On the other hand, though an ample opportunity was given, defendants failed to appear before the Court, hence evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5 clearly proved the case of Plaintiffs. Hence, it can be safely concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount from defendants.

6.Though the plaintiffs sought for partition of property into six equal shares, defendant No.1 is also class-I legal heir and thereby acquires one share over plaint schedule properties.

OS No.129/2023 3JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur

7. In the result, suit is preliminarily decreed by directing the defendants to partition the plaint schedule properties into seven equal shares with metes and bounds and to allot five such shares of the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to get the same done through process of law and with costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of March, 2024.

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: P.W.1 : Bariki Nagamma @ Vanajakshi -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: Genealogical tree of the plaintiffs and defendants

Ex.A.2: Notarized affidavit of non availability certificate of plaintiff No.1, dt.13-9-2022

Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.20-10-2022 along with postal receipts

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of regd. gift deed, dt.21-10-2020 executed by D.1 in favour of D.3

Ex.A.5 Certified copy of R.H

For defendants: -Nil-

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur.

OS No.129/2023 4JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur

Presented on: 20-06-2023

Filed on: 20-06-2023

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: ALUR

Present : Smt V.Divya,

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur. Wednesday, the 27th day of March, 2024

Original Suit No.129/2023

Between: - 1.Bariki Drakshayani, W/o Yenkanna, aged 47 years, r/o Yellarthi village, Holagunda mandal.

2.Bariki Vishalakshi, W/o Krishna, aged 47 years, r/o Balakunde village, Tekkalakota Post, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District.

3.Bariki Sharada, W/o Basavaraju, Hindu, 45 years, r/o Chittavadige Area, Hospet Post & Taluk, Vijayanagara (D).

4.Bariki Nagamma @ Vanajakshi, Hindu, W/o Gadilinga, 33 years, r/o Oddati village, Kolar District.

5.Bariki Nagaraju, S/o Late Bariki Venkoba, Hindu, aged 33 years, r/o Yellarthi village, Holagunda mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiffs

Vs.

1.Bariki Meenakshi, W/o Late Venkoba, Hindu, aged 60 years.

2.Lakshmi @ Gowramma, W/o B.Kalinga, Hindu, aged 36 years.

Both are r/o H.No.76, Bhavi Road, Near

Honnur Swamy Katta, B.C. Colony,

Ibrahimpura village & Post, Bellary (D), Karnataka State.… Defendants

This suit is filed by plaintiffs seeking to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 5/6th share i.e., 1/6th share each in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds by appointing Advocate Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties into six equal shares and allot five such shares i.e., 1/6th share each to each plaintiffs by metes and bounds and for costs and such other reliefs.

Cause of action arose on 02-02-2010 when the father of the plaintiffs viz., Bariki Venkoba died leaving behind his wife, one son and five daughters as his legal heirs and the plaint schedule properties devolved on his legal heirs who are the plaintiffs and defendants herein and they are in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of the properties and D.1 executed a registered gift deed in favour of D.2 and also plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants for divide the properties and the said plaint schedule lands situated at Yellarthi village and lingadahalli village in Holagunda mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

OS No.129/2023 5JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur

Total Market value of plaint schedule properties is Rs.27,52,000/-, Market value of plaintiffs 5/6th share value comes to Rs.22,93,333/-, and 3/4th market value of plaintiffs 5/th share is Rs.17,20,000/- and Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid as per section 34 (2) of APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming before me on this day for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri K.Ravi, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants being set exparte. Upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, as the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court hereby DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1. that the suit be and same is hereby preliminarily decreed by directing the defendants to partition the plaint schedule properties into seven equal shares with metes and bounds and to allot five such shares of the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to get the same done through process of law;

2. that the defendants do also pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.5,417/- towards costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court that the 27th day of March, 2024.

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur.

SCHEDULE

Lands are situated in the Registration District of Kurnool and Sub-Registration District of Alur and in the villages of Yellarthi and Lingadahalli in Holagunda mandalam with the following particulars:

Sl.No. Sy.No.Extent Village 1193 Ac.1-18 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Boya MallikarjunaWest: Land of Mareppa North : Land of Janardhan ReddySouth : Alur-Holagunda road 2393A Ac.1-54 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of MallikarjunaWest: Land of Khader Basha North : Land of Barika PathiSouth : Land of Narsi Reddy 3192 Ac.0-42 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Lingadahalli RasthaWest: Land of Boya Mallikarjuna North : Land of Janardhan ReddySouth : Lands of Prahallada & Janardhan 4 173 BCD Ac.0-07 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Yallarthi DargahWest: Land of Prahallada North : Land of Boya SeshagirappaSouth : Lands of Janardhan & Prahallada 5 88 Ac.2-05 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Linga ReddyWest: Land of Bariki Naganna North : Land of Kuruva DargannaSouth : Lands of Janardhana & Govardhana

OS No.129/2023 6JCJ Court,Pattikonda,

FAC JCJ Court, Alur 6 9B Ac.0-95 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Linga ReddyWest: Land of Bariki Naganna North : Land of Kuruva DargannaSouth : Lands of Janardhana & Govardhana 7 383 Ac.7-55 centsLingadahalli

Boundaries: East: Land of Bariki VenkateshWest: Land of Mala Shekappa North : Land of VenkateshSouth : Land of Mala Ramu 8 173-A Ac.0-18 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Yellarthi DargahWest: Land of Prahallada North : Land of Boya SeshigiriSouth : Lands of Janardhan & Prahallada 9297 Ac.0-84 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Bariki VenkateshWest: Land of Mala Sekappa North : Land of Kuruva DargannaSouth : Land of Kuruva Gadilingappa 10298 Ac.2-90 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Bariki VenkateshWest: Land of Mala Sekappa North : Land of Kuruva DargannaSouth : Land of Kuruva Gadilingappa 11299 Ac.0-75 centsYellarthi

Boundaries: East: Land of Bariki VenkateshWest: Land of Mala Sekhappa North : Land of Kuruva DargannaSouth : Land of Kuruva Gadilingappa

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur.

PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS

For Plaintiffs For Defendants Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00 Plaint feeRs. 200-00 Process feeRs. 115-00 Advocate feeRs.5000-00 -Nil- (As much as claimed) Typing chargesRs. 100-00 --------------------------------------------------- Total:Rs.5417-00 -Nil- ---------------------------------------------------

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Pattikonda,

FAC Civil Judge(Junior Division), Alur.

C.C.No.312/20201JMFC, Pattikonda

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda

Tuesday, the 30thday of April, 2024

C.C.No.312/2020

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Devanakonda Police station … Complainant

And

1.Boya Prasad, 40 years, S/o Boya Mutha Naganna.

2.Boya Meesala Pandu @ Gurodu, 40 years, S/o Ranganna.

3.Boya Venkatesh, S/o Thimmaiah, 26 years.(Abated) All are r/o Gundlakonda village, Devanakonda (M). .… Accused

This case is coming before me for adjudication in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri A.Myramudu, Advocate for accused. Upon hearing them, as the matter has stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.Sub Inspector of police, Devanakonda Police Station has laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 18-05-2020 at 12-00 Hours,

LW.4/HC(N.T.Kumar) caught hold of A.1 to A.3 in possession of three plastic pots, each containing 10 liters of ID arrack and when questioned, accused stated that they are about to sell said liquor for profit. Basing on police proceedings, a case in Crime No.147/2020 for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act was registered and said liquor is seized. During the course of investigation, chemical examiner opined that the sample of seized property is ID Liquor and it is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against accused for the offence under

C.C.No.312/20202JMFC, Pattikonda section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of

A.P.P. Act against the accused.

4.While the matter is coming for summons, police death certificate of A3 filed, hence case against A.3 is abated. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A.1 and A.2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the contents of charge sheet and documents relied on by the prosecution. After hearing and on consideration, a charge for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material available against accused was read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood, accused pleaded not guilty. When the accused were called to enter upon defence evidence, they did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

C.C.No.312/20203JMFC, Pattikonda

10.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted that-

a) A.1 to A.3 were found in possession of I.D liquor in contravention of AP

Prohibition Act and in support of the same Ex.P.1 police proceedings were prepared.

b) Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 corroborated with each other.

c) Oral and documentary evidence clearly established the case of prosecution.

d) Evidence on record is cogent and clinching to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, prays to punish the accused.

11.Per contra, learned counsel for defence submitted that-

a) There are several contradictions in between police proceeding and the evidence deposed before Court.

b) Police did not follow section 100 Cr.P.C while seizing the property.

c) Police registered false case for statistical purpose and accused is falsely implicated.

d) Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and so accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.Considering the entire material available on record and on scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence and arguments submitted by both the counsels, this Court is of the following view:

A. Prosecution examined the excise officials as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Police proceedings as Ex.P.1, original FIR as Ex.P.2, Chemical Analysis report as Ex.P.3, attested copy of destruction proceedings dt:16-12-2020 as Ex.P.4, attested copy of destruction panchanama dt:21-1-2020 as Ex.P.5 and sample bottle as M.O.1.

C.C.No.312/20204JMFC, Pattikonda

B. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 18-5-2020 at about 01-00 PM on credible information they went near Nagammakonda, Gundlakonda village and found accused in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack each, collected M.O.1 sample, seized remaining property, arrested accused and sent for remand. To that effect

Ex.P.1 police proceedings were Prepared. Basing on Ex.P.1 registered a case in

Cr.No.147/2020 for the offences U/Sec.7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.. Act and submitted Ex.P.2 to the Court. Later he handed over the record to L.W.5 for further investigation. He then forwarded sample for chemical analysis and later received Ex.P.3 chemical analysis report and as per the Ex.P.4 destructions proceedings, dt.16-12-2020, he destroyed the property under Ex.P.5 destruction panchanama, dt.12-1-2021. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

C. P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality and Ex.P.1 was prepared at scene of offence and they did not issue any notices to secure any local people to act as mediators and this case was falsely foisted for statistical purpose only

D. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on 18-5-2020 at about 01-00 PM on credible information himself, P.W.1, L.W.2/PC-3570, L.W.3/PC-577 went near

Nagammakonda, Gundlakonda village and caught hold of A.1 to A.3 in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack each. P.W.1 collected M.O.1 and seized remaining property and arrested the accused and sent for remand. To that effect

Ex.P.1 was prepared.

E. P.W.2 in his cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality and Ex.P.1 was prepared at scene of offence and they did not issue any notices

C.C.No.312/20205JMFC, Pattikonda to secure any local people to act as mediators and this case was falsely foisted for statistical purpose only.

F. As per Ex.P.3, M.O.1 is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

G. Sec.100 Cr.P.C specifically states that, “It is the duty of the investigating officer to secure any responsible local inhabitant to act as mediator for search and if at all any person refused to act as mediator, written requisition can be given to said person and if he refused even after that he can be punished in accordance with law.”

H. As per the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that investigating agency failed to exercise the power vested to secure any local habitants or officials available nearby to act as mediators and no written requisition or summons issued to local inhabitants to act as mediators which raises suspicion with regard to the case of prosecution.

I. No doubt it is settled legal position that merely on the ground that no independent witnesses were present at the time of search, evidence of police officials need not be looked into with suspicion but it is equally important to note that apparently there are no efforts made by the investigating officers at least to secure any of the local inhabitants.

J.Hence, I hold that the investigating agency has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

K. Statement of accused recorded under Ex.P.3 police proceedings is inadmissible and cannot be considered in view of bar under section 25 of the

C.C.No.312/20206JMFC, Pattikonda

Indian Evidence Act.

L. Since Ex.P.1 cannot be considered and as the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory procedure, I hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt ofaccused for the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence this is the fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

13.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the A.1 and A.2 shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. Case against A.3 abated as died.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30 th day of April, 2024

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: N.T.Kumar - NONE- P.W.2: P.Mahesh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Police proceedings -NIL- Ex.P.2: Original FIR as Ex.P.2 Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.4: Attested copy of destruction proceedings dt:16-12-2020 Ex.P.5: Attested copy of destruction panchanama dt:21-1-2020

C.C.No.312/20207JMFC, Pattikonda

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda.

C.C.No.312/20208JMFC, Pattikonda

JUDGMENT

C.C. No.312/2020 Dt.30-04-2024

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District of Kurnool District Calendar of cases tried by Smt.V.Divya, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda

Date of Offence: 18-05-2020 Date of Report or Complaint: 18-05-2020 Date of Apprehension of accused : Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice Date of Release on bail: - Date of Commencement of trial: 04-10-2023 Date of Close of trial: 27-02-2024 Date of sentence of Order: 30-04-2024 Explanation of delay and remarks: Prosecution did not produce witnesses Calendar and case No. : C.C.No.312/2020

Name and address of the complainant : State represented by Sub Inspector of police, Devanakonda Police station Name of the accused :1.Boya Prasad, 40 yrs, S/o Boya Mutha Naganna. 2.Boya Meesala Pandu @ Gurodu, 40 years, S/o Ranganna. 3.Boya Venkatesh, S/o Thimmaiah, 26 yrs(Abated) All are r/o Gundlakonda (V), Devanakonda (M).

Section of law: : Under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of APP Act

Finding of the Court : A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of APP Act

Sentence: In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of APP Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Case against A.3 is abated, as died.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattikonda.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC 211/20191JMFC, Pattikonda

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt V.Divya

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda

Monday, this the 22nd day of April, 2024

C.C. No. 211 of 2019

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Devanakonda Police station … Complainant

And

Karumanchi Ramesh,

S/o Bajari, age 25 years, R/o Devanakonda village and Mandal .… Accused

This case is coming before me for adjudication in the presence of learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for accused. Upon hearing them, as the matter has stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.Sub Inspector of police, Devanakonda Police Station has laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 04.04.2019 at 08.00 PM,

LW.4/S.I(A.C.Chinna Peeraiah) caught hold of accused in possession of 8 liters of I.D liquor and when questioned, accused stated that he is about to sell said arrack for profit. Basing on police proceedings, a case in Crime No.61/2019 for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act was registered and said arrack is seized. During the course of investigation, chemical examiner opined that the sample of seized property is ID arrack and it is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against accused for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section and 7-A r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

CC 211/20192JMFC, Pattikonda

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents relied on by the prosecution. After hearing and on consideration, a charge for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs. P.1 to P.3 and M.Os 1 and 2 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material available against accused was read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood, accused pleaded not guilty. When the accused was called to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted that-

a) Accused was found in possession of I.D arrack in contravention of AP Prohibition Act and in support of the same Ex.P1 police proceedings were prepared.

b) Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 corroborated with each other.

c) Oral and documentary evidence clearly established the case of prosecution.

d) Evidence on record is cogent and clinching to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, prays to punish the accused.

11.Per contra, learned counsel for defence submitted that-

a) There are several contradictions in between police proceeding and the evidence deposed before Court.

b) Police did not follow section 100 Cr.P.C while seizing the property.

CC 211/20193JMFC, Pattikonda

c) Police registered false case for statistical purpose and accused is falsely implicated.

d) Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and so accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.Considering the entire material available on record and on scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence and arguments submitted by both the counsels, this Court is of the following view:

A. Prosecution examined the excise officials as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked police proceedings as Ex.P1, original First Information Report as Ex.P.2, Chemical Analysis report as Ex.P.3, sample as M.O.1 and white can containing I.D arrack as MO.2.

B. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 04-04-2019 at about 7.45 PM on credible information they went to Eidgha, Devanakonda village and found accused in possession of 8 liters of I.D arrack. To that effect Ex.P1 police proceedings was prepared and property is seized.

C.PW.1 in his cross examination denied that no offence as alleged took place and no property was seized from the possession of accused.

D. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that on 04-04-2019 at about 7.45 PM on credible information they went to Eidgha, Devanakonda village and found accused in possession of 8 liters of I.D arrack. To that effect Ex.P1 police proceedings was prepared and property is seized. He registered a case in Cr.No.61/2019 for the offences under Sec.7-a r/w 8(e) of APP Act and submitted Ex.P2 original F.I.R to the Court and basing on Ex.P1, collected sample and seized remaining property and sample was sent for chemical analysis and later received Ex.P3 chemical analysis report.

E. PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality and they did not issue any notices to secure any local people to act as mediators.

F.As per Ex.P.3, M.O.1 is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

G.Sec.100 Cr.P.C specifically states that, “It is the duty of the investigating officer to secure any responsible local inhabitant to act as mediator for search and if at all any

CC 211/20194JMFC, Pattikonda

person refused to act as mediator, written requisition can be given to said person and if he refused even after that he can be punished in accordance with law.”

H.As per the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that investigating agency failed to exercise the power vested to secure any local habitants or officials available nearby to act as mediators and no written requisition or summons issued to local inhabitants to act as mediators which raises suspicion with regard to the case of prosecution.

I.No doubt it is settled legal position that merely on the ground that no independent witnesses were present at the time of search, evidence of police officials need not be looked into with suspicion but it is equally important to note that apparently there are no efforts made by the investigating officers at least to secure any of the local inhabitants.

J.Hence, I hold that the investigating agency has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

K.Statement of accused recorded under Ex.P1 police proceedings is inadmissible and cannot be considered in view of bar under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

L.Since Ex.P.1 cannot be considered and as the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory procedure, I hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence this is the fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. MO.2 shall be produced before Deputy

Commissioner to police for disposal in accordance with law.

T yped to dictation by Personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22-04-2024

CC 211/20195JMFC, Pattikonda

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1: Bazari - NIL- P.W.2: K.N.Mohan Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P-1: Police proceedings -NIL- Ex.P-2: First Information Report Ex.P-3: Chemical Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample

M.O.2: White can containing I.D arrack

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda.

CC 211/20196JMFC, Pattikonda

JUDGMENT

C.C. No.211 of 2 019

Dt. 22-04-2024

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District of Kurnool District Calendar of cases tried by Smt.V.Divya, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda Date of Offence: 04-04-2019 Date of Report or Complaint: 04-04-2019 Date of Apprehension of accused : 04-04-2019 Date of Release on bail: 04-04-2019 Date of Commencement of trial: 20-12-2022 Date of Close of trial: 18-03-2024 Date of sentence of Order: 22-04-2024 Explanation of delay and remarks:Prosecution did not produce witnesses Calendar and case No. : C.C. 211/2019 Name and address of the complainant:State represented by Sub Inspector of police, Devanakonda Police station Name of the accused: Karumanchi Ramesh,

S/o Bajari, age 25 years, R/o Devanakonda village and Mandal Section of law: : Under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act. Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Act, Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattikonda.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum- Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Kurnool.