V Gopala Krishna

1 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

FORM A

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

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TUNI ::

Present :- Sri. V. Gopala Krishna,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tuni

Monday, the 18th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 286/2024

Complainant The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Police Station.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

AccusedMiriyala Srinu, S/o Apparao, Age 32 yrs, R/o D.J. Puram village of Rowthulapudi Mandal. Represented bySri. K. Appalaraju, Advocate

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.172/2024 for the offence under Section 125(b) of BNS, 2023.

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

2.1) PW1 is working as a salesman in Vikram Publications and as part of his duty, on 09.08.2024, while he was proceeding towards

Sankavaram village over his motorcycle, at about 2 P.M., when he was reached near to Rajupeta village of Tuni Mandal the accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 CN 4834 of drove his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner at high speed on the opposite direction of PW1 and dashed the 2 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

motorcycle, in respect of the PW1, due to which PW1 received grievous injuries.

2.2) Basing on statement of LW1/Palaka Srinivasu, a case in

Cr.No. 172/2024 under section 125(a) of BNS, 2023 was registered by PW7.

2.3) During the course of investigation, PW7 examined the witnesses LW1/Palaka Srinivasu, PW1 to PW4 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared its rough sketch. PW7 served notice U/sec. 35(3) of BNSS, to the accused.

2.4) PW6 took up investigation in this case, received wound certificate of PW1 from the Medical Officer/PW5 with a opinion that the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. Later on receipt of wound certificate of PW1, the section of law was altered from 125(a) BNS to 125(b) of BNS, 2023 by PW6.

2.5) After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.On perusal of record, this Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 125(b) of BNS, 2023 against the accused by my learned predecessor in office.

4.On appearance of accused copies of documents are furnished to him as per section 230 B.N.S.S.,.

5.Consequent upon examination of the accused under section 274 of BNSS and having recorded his pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences under section 125(b) of BNS, 2023, he was put to face the trial for the said offence.

3 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

6.In support of its case, prosecution has examined Seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.4 documents.

7. Having gone through the evidence, oral and documentary placed on record, accused was examined U/Sec.351 of BNSS, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

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

1) “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused for

the offence under section 125(b) of the BNS, beyond all reasonable

doubts?”

POINT :

9. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has chosen to examine PW.1 to 7.

10. PW1, who is injured deposed that on 09.08.2024, morning while he is coming from Visakhapatnam to Sankhavaram village on his pulsar motorcycle bearing Reg. No. AP 31 CH 3515 on his office work, as he is working as salesman in Vikram publications and reached to Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village around 2.00 PM. In the meanwhile, the accused came in their opposite direction in a wrong route on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 CN 4834 in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit against motorcycle. Due to which, he fell on the ground and sustained severe bleeding injury, over his right foot, as the break rod was inserted in his foot and the accused person also fell on the ground and sustained injuries. PWs 2 to 4 witnessed the alleged accident on the spot and called 108 ambulance and saw the driver of the crime vehicle at the scene of offence place and he identified the accused in open court. PW4 shifted him to Area 4 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

hospital, Tuni for treatment, therefrom shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam.

As PW1 underwent surgery, LW1/Palakala Srinivasu, who is father of

PW1 gave a statement to police.

This court recorded the cross-examination of PW1 as Nil, as per the Circular in R.O.C.No. 2942/SO/2017, dt. 22.12.2017, due to no representation of defence counsel.

11.PW2, who is alleged to be eye witness deposed that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 PM, while PW2 and PW3 were going to

Srungavaram from Tuni on his motorcycle, at that time PW1 passed in front of his motorcycle and when they reached near Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village around 2.00 PM. In the meanwhile, the accused came in their opposite direction in an intoxicated stage in a wrong route on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. AP 05 CN 4834 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit against the motorcycle of

PW1. Due to which, PW1 fell on the ground and sustained severe bleeding injury over his right foot, as the break rod was inserted in his foot and the accused person also fell on the ground and sustained injuries. PW2 to PW4 witnessed the alleged accident. PW4 shifted PW1 to Area hospital, Tuni for treatment, therefrom shifted to KGH,

Visakhapatnam. PW1 stayed in hospital for 80 days as in-patient and he took bed rest for 8 months due to the said accident.

During cross-examination PW2 admitted that PW1 is resident of

Visakhapatnam, there is no relation between himself and PW1/injured.

LW1 gave Ex.P.1/report to the police two days after the date of accident. PW4 is working as a salesman in IFFCO company.

12.PW3, alleged to be eye witness deposed that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 PM, he and PW2 are going to Srungavaram from Tuni on his motorcycle at that time PW1 was passed in front of his motorcycle and when they reached near Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village around 5 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

2.00 PM. In the meanwhile the accused came in their opposite direction in an intoxicated stage in a wrong route on his motorcycle bearing Reg.

No. AP 05 CN 4834 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit against motorcycle of PW1. Due to which, PW1 fell on the ground and he sustained severe bleeding injury over his right foot, as the break rod was inserted in his foot and the accused person also fell on the ground and sustained injuries. He, PW2 to PW4 witnessed the alleged accident. PW4 shifted PW1 to Area hospital, Tuni for treatment, therefrom shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam. PW1 stayed in hospital for 80 days as in-patient and he took bed rest for 8 months due to the said accident.

During cross-examination PW3 deposed that PW1 is resident of

Visakhapatnam, there is no relation between him and PW1/injured. LW1 gave Ex.P.1/report to the police two days after the date of accident.

PW4 is working as a salesman in IFFCO company.

13.PW4 deposed that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 PM, he and PW3 are going to Srungavaram from Tuni on his motorcycle, at that time

PW1 was passed in front of his motorcycle and when they reached near

Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village around 2.00 PM. In the meanwhile, the accused came in their opposite direction in an intoxicated stage in a wrong route on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.

AP 05 CN 4834 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit against motorcycle of PW1. Due to which PW1 fell on the ground and sustained severe bleeding injury over his right foot as the break rod was inserted in his foot and the accused person also fell on the ground and sustained injuries. He, PW2 to PW4 witnessed the alleged accident. PW4 shifted PW1 to Area hospital, Tuni for treatment, therefrom shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam. PW1 stayed in hospital for 80 days as in-patient and he took bed rest for 8 months due to the said 6 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

accident.

During cross-examination PW4 admitted that he came to know about the accident through LW1 over telephone.

14.PW5/ Medical officer deposed that on 10.08.2024, at about 2.17

AM, he examined PW1 alleged to be received injuries in road accident i.e., two wheeler Vs. two wheeler and also noted the identification marks of the injured person and found a crush injury on right foot. He is of the opinion that the above injury is grievous in nature and he issued

Ex.P.2/wound certificate.

During cross-examination PW5 he did not mention the age and colour of injury in Ex.P.2. The injured was admitted in his hospital and the brother of PW1 was accompanied with him.

15.PW6/investigation officer deposed that on 09.08.2024, PW7 registered a case in Cr.No. 172/2024 U/sec. 125(B) of BNS, 2023 and continued investigation in this case. On 19.08.2024, he assumed charges as SHO, Tuni Rural PS and received the CD file from PW7 and verified the investigation done by PW7. On 04.11.2024, he received wound certificate of injured/Palaka Srinivasu in which PW5 opined that the injuries sustained by the injured person are grievous in nature.

Basing on Ex.P.2/wound certificate, he altered the section of law from 125(A) to 125(B) of BNS, 2023 and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

During cross-examination PW6 admitted that he continued further investigation in this case and orally re-examined the witnesses at the scene of offence place.

16.PW7/another investigation officer deposed that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 PM, on receipt of MLC intimation, he went to hospital and 7 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

recorded the statement of the injured under Ex.P.1 and he registered

Ex.P.1 as a case in Cr.No. 172/2024 U/sec. 125(a) of BNS, 2023 and issued Ex.P.3/FIR. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence place situated near

Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village of Tuni Mandal and drafted rough sketch. He received of wound certificate from Medical Officer/PW7. He arrested the accused, when the accused surrendered before him and served 35(3) of BNSS notice. He handed over the CD file to PW6, who conducted further investigation, received Ex.P.2 wound certificate from

PW5 and filed charge sheet under section 125(b) of BNS.

During cross-examination PW7 deposed that he did not mention the date on which he examined PW1 to PW4 and LW1. He did not prepare the scene observation report and he did not seize the crime vehicle. He did not taken the photographs of the scene of offence. He denied that there is no negligence on part of the accused in commission of the alleged offence i.e., accident and he is deposing false and he filed foist case against the accused, in order to claim insurance to the injured person and he never visited scene of offence place.

17. The counsel for accused argued vehemently that the accused never committed any offence, all the witnesses are deposing false about the accused and they lodged a false case against the accused.

PW1 was not cross-examined, as such the truths were not revealed in which circumstances the accident was occurred. Further the injured himself admitted that there is a rod inserted to his leg, hence, he was a weak person, as such he could not control his vehicle and himself fell on the road without dashing by the accused, if the PW1 was cross- examined the truths might be elicited. The prosecution failed to examined LW1/Palaka Srinivas, who is complainant. The prosecution also failed to examine the MV Inspector. Hence, there are many latches 8 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

on behalf of prosecution. Through the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW7, there are many omissions and contradictions in their evidence.

Hence, the prosecution could not establish its case, beyond all reasonable doubts.

18.On the other hand, the learned APP argued in vehemently that all the prosecution witnesses deposed about the occurrence of offence and the rash and negligent act of the accused. The prosecution proved its case by examining PW1 to PW7 which includes injured independent, eye witnesses evidence coupled with medical evidence and investigation officer evidence and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 documents. Except PW1, all the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, but nothing was elicited to prove his case. Cross-examination of PW1 was also closed by the Hon’ble court, due to absence of learned counsel, which shows the negligence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution successfully proved the offences committed by the accused by adducing cogent and convincing oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence. The learned APP also filed a memo and relied on citation in “CRL.R.P. NO. 1159/2012 between K.M. Appachu Vs. State of Karnataka”. Hence, the APP prays to convict the accused.

19.This court gone through the evidences of prosecution witnesses, perused the material available on record, heard arguments on both sides.

20.Coming to the appreciation of the evidence Section 125(b) of

BNS, 2023 reads as follows:-

Section 125(b) of BNS, 2023 Act endangering life or personal safety of

others :- “whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to

endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both, but-”.

9 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

(b) where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three

years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with

both.

21. In a criminal trial the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the surmises and conjecturers. It should be born in the mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence adduced in the case and the material placed on record.

22.While coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court to take the following circumstances into consideration.

1.the circumstances in which the offence is said to have been committed.

2.The motive for the offence or false accusation

3.The consistency of the story told by the prosecution, its probability or plausibility.

4.The nature of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution

5.Its credibility

6.The character, position and independence of the witnesses

7.The reasons for accepting or rejecting any portion of the statements, its effect on the testimony.

8.The examination of the accused explaining the f acts in the evidence against him

9.The evidence adduced in support of the defence theory.

23.“The test beyond all reasonable doubt” is really the estimate which a Prudent man makes of the probabilities, having regard to what must be his duty as a result of his evidence.

10 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

24.Coming to appreciation of evidence, PW1 deposed that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 P.M., while he was proceeding on his motorcycle from Visakhapatnam to Sankhavaram on his motorcycle and when he reached to place of offence i.e., Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village, in the meanwhile, the accused who is coming in the opposite direction of PW1, came in a wrong route on his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit against the motorcycle of

PW1. Due to which PW1 fell on the ground and received severe injuries. PW1 further deposed that PW2 to PW4 witnessed the accident.

PW1 identified the accused in open court. PW2 to PW4, who are alleged to be eye witnesses deposed about the accident that on 09.08.2024, at about 2.00 PM, while PW2 and PW3 were going to

Srungavaram from Tuni on their motorcycle at that time PW1 was passed in their front side on his motorcycle and when they reached near

Jagananna colony in Rajupeta village, in the meanwhile the accused

came in their opposite direction in a intoxicated stage in a wrong

route on his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner without

blowing horn and hit against the motorcycle of PW1. The eye witness PW2 to PW4 also identified the accused in open court.

25.The learned counsel for accused contended that the investigation officer did not conducted TI Parade of the accused, identification of accused in open court by the witnesses is not trust worthy and the said identification of witnesses cannot be relied on.

26.Though the Investigation Officer did not conducted test identification parade, PW1 himself deposed that he saw the driver at the time of accident at the scene of offence place and he further deposed that he can identify the accused, if shown to him, on such statement itself PW1 was asked to identify the accused, then the PW1 identified 11 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

the accused, who stood in the open court hall. As well as, the remaining witnesses also identified the accused in same manner of PW1. Hence, the prosecution succeeded in proving the identification of the accused.

In such cases like accident, the identification of accused is much essential ingredient to prove the case and in the present case the identification of accused is proved by the prosecution.

27.Further the learned counsel for accused cross-examined the eye witnesses PW2 to PW4, but nothing was elicited to prove the defence.

The learned counsel failed to cross-examine the PW1, for which the counsel for accused contended that this court closed the cross- examination of PW1. When, once any of the witness’s evidence is closed, there is a chance to re-open the said closed evidence, on filing of an application under section 348 of BNSS (311 Cr.P.C.,). But the learned counsel failed to do so to elicit the facts and the same shows the negligence on the part of the defence counsel.

28.The medical officer and investigation officers deposed about what they done in the present case. The learned counsel for accused cross- examined them, but nothing was elicited in favour of accused.

29.The further contention of learned counsel for accused is that the crime vehicle was not examined by the MV Inspector, through which it may elicit that the accident might be occurred due to mechanical defects of crime vehicle. Non-examination of MV Inspector is fatal to the prosecution case. But as per Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the

MV Inspector evidence is only a opinion evidence, hence, non- examination of MV Inspector, not at all shaken the evidence of direct witness. Therefore, mere non-examination of MV Inspector, the case of prosecution cannot be thrown away. Moreover, nowhere it was 12 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

contended that through the mechanical defects of the crime vehicle itself, the alleged accident was occurred, but not due to negligence of the accused.

30.This court have considered the rival contentions/submissions and gone through the entire evidence on record of the case. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of PW2 to 4, as to the material facts. Further the medical evidence also corroborated the occular evidence of PW1 about the injuries received by him in the alleged accident.

31.In general, in the accident cases like 125(b) of BNS, 2023 the main ingredients are identity of the accused, rash and negligent driving of the accused and the injuries caused to injured/deceased person. To prove the first aspect i.e., identity of the accused the witnesses PW1 to

PW4 identified the accused in open court. The counsel himself posed a questioned in cross-examination of witnesses, for which they replied that the accused also received injuries in the said accident and the witnesses added that the accused accompanied with him from

Srungavaram to Area hospital, Tuni, which means the accused was present by the time of accident. Hence, the presence of accused by the time of accident was also proved. The another aspect i.e., rash and negligent driving of the accused PW1 to PW4 clearly deposed that the accused drove his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused injuries to PW1. Hence, the rash and negligent driving of the accused also proved. To prove the injuries sustained by the PW1, the medical officer issued wound certificate/Ex.P.2 stating that a crush injury on right foot and the PW1 also deposed that he received severe bleeding injury over his right foot. Hence, the injuries of PW1 and oral evidence of PW1 was corroborated with the medical evidence 13 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

and wound certificate, which is sufficient evidence as per Sec. 134 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

32.Since the prosecution established the identity of accused; rash and negligent act of accused; and the injuries received by the PW1, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 125(b) of BNS, 2023.

33. On an earnest consideration of the material placed on record and having made appreciation of the same in proper perspective, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 125(b) of BNS, 2023. Hence, the point goes in favour of prosecution.

34.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 125(b) of BNS, 2023 and he is convicted under Section 278(2) of BNSS.,.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

xx Sd/- V. Gopala Krishna Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

35. When this court questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence, for which the accused once again pleaded not guilty and submitted that his mother is no more, as such he has to looked after his old aged father and he is also having wife and two daughters, all are depending upon his earnings. If he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, his family will became orphans, hence, requested the court to take lenient view in imposing sentence.

14 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

36.The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 125(b) of BNS, 2023 imprisonment for either description for a term which may extent to three years or with fine or both.

37.Taking the facts and circumstances of case into consideration, it is not a fit case to release the accused under Section 4 of PO Act or under Section 401 B.N.S.S.,.

38.Considering the submissions made by the accused, this court feels that imposing of Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year and shall also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under section 125(b) of BNS, 2023 will meets the end of justice.

39.The accused is entitled for set-off the remand period, as per section 468 B.N.S.S., but there is no remand period was undergone by the accused during pre-trial, enquiry, investigation and trial etc., to give set off.

40.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 125(b) of BNS and he is convicted under section 278 (2) B.N.S.S.,. He is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year

and shall also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of

fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of 3 months for the offence punishable under section 125(b) of

BNS, 2023.

41.Accused is here by informed that he has got a right of appeal against this Judgment of conviction before the appellate court and in 15 C.C.No. 286/2024 dt. 18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

that regard he can also approach the Honourable District legal service authority, East Godavari District, at Rajamahendravaram for seeking free legal aid, if he is inclined to do so.

42.Office is directed to furnish a copy of judgment to the accused.

43.The accused paid a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only) vide Receipt No. 12828, dated. 18.05.2026.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

xx Sd/- V. Gopala Krishna Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

FORM B

Date of Offence09.08.2024 Date of FIR11.08.2024 Date of Charge Sheet27.11.2024 Date of appearance of accused 22.05.2025 Date of Commencement of trial 01.08.2025 Date of conclusion of trial28.01.2026 Date of the Judgment18.05.2026 Date of Sentencing order, if any18.05.2026

Accused Details

RankName ofDatDate ofOffencesWhetherSentence Imposed Period of Detention of theAccused e ofReleaschargedAcquittedUndergone during AccusArre onwith orTrial for purpose of ed est Bail convicted section 428 Cr.P.C 1Miriyala--125(b) ofConvicted In the result, Accused is found guilty for– BNS, 2023 Srinuthe offence under section 125(b) of BNS and he is convicted under section 278 (2) B.N.S.S.,. He is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year and shall also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under section 125(b) of BNS, 2023.

16 C.C.No.286/2024 dt.18.05.2026; JMFC court, TUNI.

FORM C

LIST OF PROSEUCTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RankName(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness) PW1Palaka SureshComplainant PW2Allu NookarajuEye witness

PW3B. Raju NageswararaoEye witness PW.4Thota SwamyProsecution witness PW.5Dr. S. SumanMedical Officer PW.6B. KrishnamacharyInvestigation Officer PW.7R. SubhramanyamInvestigation Officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

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

DW1 None None

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness) CW1NoneNone

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1Report of PW1 Ex.P2Wound certificate Ex.P3FIR Ex.P4Copy of MLC intimation Ex.P5Rough sketch

For Defence:-

Ex.Nil

Material Objects

Nil xx Sd/- V. Gopala Krishna Judicial First Class Magistrate Tuni.

Copy submitted to :- Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry Copy to :-1) Accused

Digitally Signed by

VEERAVALLI GOPALA

VEERAVALLI GOPALA KRISHNA

KRISHNADate: 2026.05.18 13:33:30 +0000

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PRATHIPADU

PRESENT: Sri V.Gopala Krishna, J.F.C. Magistrate, Prathipadu Wednesday, this the 13th day of April, 2022 CALENDAR CASE NO : 178/2021 Between: The State Represented by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu. …. Complainant.

And:

Valluri Apparao, S/o: Potayya, Age 55 years, Caste/SC(Madiga), R/o: Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal …… Accused.

This case is coming on 04.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate

for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court

delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

(1) The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.517/2019 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Prathipadu alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2)The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

On 16.08.2019 at about 4.00 p.m. P.W.1 along with staff L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu while conducting patrolling for Prohibition and Excise Offences near cement road, opposite house of accused in SC Colony at Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, found the accused in possession of a white mica bag in his right hand and on seeing the raid party the accused tried to escape, on suspicion, he detained the accused and on questioning the accused revealed that the white mica bag contained I.D. Arrack. Then L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu was deputed to secure for mediators, after 15 minutes L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu returned and stated that nobody come forward to act as mediators and on verification of white mica bag, P.W.1 opened it and found Five Liters of I.D. Liquor in it. On enquiry the accused disclosed his identity and stated that he purchased the said liquor from unknown person at his village outskirts and bringing the same for selling at higher price at his Village. Then P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband and drawn 300 ML of I.D. Arrack as a sample for Chemical Analysis purpose, affixed identity slips and sealed the property under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. P.W.1 returned to police station and registered the case basing on the special report in Cr.No.517/2019 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Later the accused was produced before this Court for judicial custody and later released on bail. The sample drawn was sent to the Govt. Chemical Examiner, Kakinada through the Asst. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Kakinada. The Chemical Examiner, Kakinada who analyzed the samples opined in C.E.No.1763/2019 that “THE SAMPLE AT SL.NO.20254 is “ILLICITLY DISTILLED LIQUOR UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND INJURIOUS TO HEALTH”. P.W.1 produced remaining contraband before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada for confiscation of the state and the destruction orders were received from Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada and the contraband was destroyed in the presence of mediators on 15.02.2020 and after completion of investigation, P.W.1 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge sheet.

2

3) This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4)On appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which he denied the charge punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined one witness as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3 and got produced M.O.1 property.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the incriminating evidence leveled against him. When he call upon to enter upon defence evidence, he reported no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf and got marked no documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT :-

10)The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 for illegal possession of I.D. liquor without any licence or permit.

11)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1/S.V.Prakash Kumar who is the then Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu deposed that on 02.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. he along with L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu conducted patrolling duty near cement road, opposite the house of accused in SC Colony at Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal and they noticed the accused while he is carrying mica hand bag on his right hand and on seeing the raid party the accused tried to escape, on suspicion they stopped the accused and questioned about the contents of white mica bag, the accused revealed that it contained I.D. Liquor in one polythene cover containing five liters of I.D. Arrack and then he deputed L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu for securing mediators, after some time L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu returned and stated that village elders are not available to act as mediators and on enquiry the accused revealed his name and address particulars and also stated that he purchased the said liquor from unknown person at his village outskirts and selling the same for profit. Then he explained the grounds of offence, arrested the accused and seized Five Liters of I.D. Arrack under cover of Ex.P1 special report and he took one of the bottle as sample under M.O.1 and he returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property and he registered Ex.P1 as a case under Ex.P2 FIR and released the accused on station bail after obtaining sufficient sureties and during the course of investigation he sent the sample bottle to the Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. Ex.P3 is C.E. Report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that himself and L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu went to the scene of offence place situated near cement road, opposite the house of accused in SC Colony, Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal and scene of offence place is a busy locality and the general public are used to move freely. P.W.1 deputed L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu to secure mediators but none came forward to act as mediators. P.W.1 deny the suggestion that they did not go to the scene of offence place and no property seized in this case and he filed the case against the accused for statistical purpose only.

14)The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused by examining P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P3 in support of production of M.O.1 property and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

15) The learned counsel for accused argued that the accused is the poor man, he is an innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and the case is foisted only for a statistical purpose. The learned defence counsel for the accused further argued that 3

Ex.P1 was brought into existence as if the P.W.1 and L.W.2/D.Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu found the accused while he is in possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and consistence evidence and failed to produce the evidence to the confidence of the court.

16)The learned counsel for the accused further argued that in the absence of independent eye witnesses the accused can’t be convict basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official and hence pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

17)The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in 2006 Part-I ALD (Crl.) page No.254 Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition. “Wherein their Lordship that Search and seizure- Failure to follow proper procedure – Effect – Accused found in possession of ID liquor – Conviction under Section 8(b) of Act– Confirmed in appeal - Revision - Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at police station and took them along with them to scene of offence situate at distance of three kilometers – As disclosed by Panchanama no attempt made to secure independent respectable witnesses of locality which is at a distance of 25 yards from scene of offence – Failure to follow the procedure for search as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. While seizing plastic bag containing ID liquor - Seizure made is illegal – PW.2, mediator in whose presence plastic bag containing ID liquor was seized, turned hostile – Both Courts below relied upon self serving testimony of Excise Officials and found accused guilty – In absence independent evidence, evidence of Excise Officials cannot be relied upon – Revision allowed. Conviction and – sentence set aside 100(4)”.

18)In view of the above arguments advanced by the defence counsel I am of the opinion that the court has to see that whether the possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party from the accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As can be seen from the charge sheet averments and the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the scene of offence place is situated near cement road, opposite the house of accused in SC Colony, Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal and the accused is found while he is in possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party he tried to escape, but raid party caught the accused and the time of alleged offence at about 4.00 p.m. on 16.08.2019, while the Excise officials conducted patrolling duty is also not at all impossible to secure Government Official as independent local inhabitant mediators from the scene of offence place situated near cement road, opposite to the house of accused in SC Colony, Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal to strengthen the seizure of ID liquor.

21)In view of the above evidence of P.W.1, it clearly shows that he did not make any efforts to secure mediators and seizure of the ID liquor. More over the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful whether they found the accused while he is in possession of said contraband at the alleged place of offence.

22)Basing on the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official it is not possible to come to conclusion that the seizure of the said possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor though possession of accused is established. From the oral evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution mainly relied upon the Ex.P1 special report. I have perused it as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P1 It is clear that the accused confessed his guilt before the police which is in admissible in the eye of law as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence, I am of considered view that Ex.P1 can’t be taken into consideration to meet the accused liable for an alleged offence.

23)The evidence of P.W.1 revealed that P.W.1 forwarded 300 ml of I.D liquor to the Chemical Examiner Regional Prohibition Excise, Kakinada for analysis and report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition Excise, Kakinada for confiscation and destruction of contraband property. P.W.1 categorically stated that he did not obtain any receipt to show that he handed over the same to the Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. P.W.1 also not filed the property destruction order or memo before this court. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he forwarded the same to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and after receipt of chemical examination report P.W.1 filed charge sheet, FIR and Chemical Examination report

before this court.

24)In view of the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to connect the accused with the alleged offence and the arguments submitted by the defence counsel admittedly the said possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party, after taking the sample was produced before this Court. Basing on oral evidence of P.W.1, it is not 4 possible to come to just conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused. In the absence of independent evidence and I am of a considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police personal and interested witnesses cannot be taken into consideration to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Moreover seizure of the said contraband from the possession of the accused is not established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case the evidence of P.W.1, M.O.1 sample was seized and pasted with identification slips under cover of Ex.P1 special report from the possession of the accused to strengthen the seizure of the said contraband is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.

25)For the fore going reasons I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

26)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1:S.V. Prakash Kumar

For Defence:None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Special report. Ex.P.2:First Information Report Ex.P.3:C.E. Report.

For Defence : NIL

Material Objects

M.O.1:Sample bottle

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate :: Prathipadu

C.C.178/2021

Date of Offence: 16.08.2019

Date of Report : 16.08.2019

Date of arrest of Accused : 16.08.2019

Date of Release of accused on bail: 20.08.2019

Date of commencement of Trial : 22.03.2022

Date of close of Trial: 04.04.2022

Date of sentence or order: 13.04.2022 Crime No. and Name of the P.S: Cr.No.517/2019 of Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu Name of the Complainant: State : Inspector of P & E Police, Prathipadu P.S Name of the accused:Valluri Apparao, S/o: Potayya, Age 55 years, Caste/SC(Madiga), R/o: Vommangi Village, Prathipadu Mandal Offence: U/Sec. U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PRATHIPADU

PRESENT: Sri V.Gopala Krishna, J.F.C. Magistrate, Prathipadu Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022 CALENDAR CASE NO : 181/2021 Between: The State Represented by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu. …. Complainant.

And:

Pilli Nageswararao, S/o Apparao, Age 58 years, Caste/SC(Mala), R/o: Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal …… Accused.

This case is coming on 04.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate

for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court

delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

(1) The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.608/2019 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Prathipadu alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2)The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

On 02.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.1 along with staff L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu while conducting patrolling for Prohibition and Excise Offences near Ambedkar Statue at Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal, found the accused in possession of a white mica bag in his right hand and on seeing the raid party the accused tried to escape, on suspicion, he detained the accused and on questioning the accused revealed that the white mica bag contained I.D. Arrack. Then L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu was deputed to secure for mediators, after 15 minutes L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu returned and stated that nobody come forward to act as mediators and on verification of white mica bag, P.W.1 opened it and found Five Liters of I.D. Liquor in it. On enquiry the accused disclosed his identity and stated that he purchased the said liquor from unknown person at his village outskirts and bringing the same for selling at higher price at his Village. Then P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband and drawn 300 ML of I.D. Arrack as a sample for Chemical Analysis purpose, affixed identity slips and sealed the property under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. P.W.1 returned to police station and registered the case basing on the special report in Cr.No.608/2019 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Later the accused was produced before this Court for judicial custody and later released on bail. The sample drawn was sent to the Govt. Chemical Examiner, Kakinada through the Asst. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Kakinada. The Chemical Examiner, Kakinada who analyzed the samples opined in C.E.No.2160/2019 that “THE SAMPLE AT SL.NO.24044 is “ILLICITLY DISTILLED LIQUOR UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND INJURIOUS TO HEALTH”. P.W.1 produced remaining contraband before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada for confiscation of the state and the destruction orders were received from Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada and the contraband was destroyed in the presence of mediators on 07.01.2020 and after completion of investigation, P.W.1 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge sheet.

3) This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) 2 r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

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

5)The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which he denied the charge punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined one witness as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3 and got produced M.O.1 property.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the incriminating evidence leveled against him. When he call upon to enter upon defence evidence, he reported no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf and got marked no documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT :-

10)The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 for illegal possession of I.D. liquor without any licence or permit.

11)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1/S.V.Prakash Kumar who is the then Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu deposed that on 02.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. he along with L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu conducted patrolling duty near Ambedkar Statue at Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and they noticed the accused while he is carrying mica hand bag on his right hand and on seeing the raid party the accused tried to escape, on suspicion they stopped the accused and questioned about the contents of white mica bag, the accused revealed that it contained I.D. Liquor in one polythene cover containing five liters of I.D. Arrack and then he deputed L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu for securing mediators, after some time L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu returned and stated that village elders are not available to act as mediators and on enquiry the accused revealed his name and address particulars and also stated that he purchased the said liquor from an unknown person at his village outskirts and selling the same for profit. Then he explained the grounds of offence, arrested the accused and seized Five Liters of I.D. Arrack under cover of Ex.P1 special report and he took one of the bottle as sample under M.O.1 and he returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property and he registered Ex.P1 as a case under Ex.P2 FIR and released the accused on station bail after obtaining sufficient sureties and during the course of investigation he sent the sample bottle to the Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. Ex.P3 is C.E. Report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. Inhiscross-examinationP.W.1admittedthathimselfand L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu went to the scene of offence place situated near Ambedkar Statue, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and scene of offence place is a busy locality and the general public are used to move freely. P.W.1 deputed L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu to secure mediators but none came forward to act as mediators. P.W.1 deny the suggestion that they did not go to the scene of offence place and no property seized in this case and he filed the case against the accused for statistical purpose only.

14)The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused by examining P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P3 in support of production of M.O.1 property and requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

15) The learned counsel for accused argued that the accused is a poor man, he is an innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and the case is foisted only for a statistical purpose. The learned defence counsel for the accused further argued that Ex.P1 was brought into existence as if the P.W.1 and L.W.2/A.V.V.Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Prathipadu found the accused while he is in 3 possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and consistence evidence and failed to produce the evidence to the confidence of the court.

16)The learned counsel for the accused further argued that in the absence of independent eye witnesses the accused can’t be convict basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official and hence pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

17)The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in 2006 Part-I ALD (Crl.) page No.254 Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition. “Wherein their Lordship that Search and seizure- Failure to follow proper procedure – Effect – Accused found in possession of ID liquor – Conviction under Section 8(b) of Act– Confirmed in appeal - Revision - Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at police station and took them along with them to scene of offence situate at distance of three kilometers – As disclosed by Panchanama no attempt made to secure independent respectable witnesses of locality which is at a distance of 25 yards from scene of offence – Failure to follow the procedure for search as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. While seizing plastic bag containing ID liquor - Seizure made is illegal – PW.2, mediator in whose presence plastic bag containing ID liquor was seized, turned hostile – Both Courts below relied upon self serving testimony of Excise Officials and found accused guilty – In absence independent evidence, evidence of Excise Officials cannot be relied upon – Revision allowed. Conviction and – sentence set aside 100(4)”.

18)In view of the above arguments advanced by the defence counsel I am of the opinion that the court has to see that whether the possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party from the accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As can be seen from the charge sheet averments and the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the scene of offence place is situated near Ambedkar Statue in Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and the accused is found while he is in possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party he tried to escape, but raid party caught the accused and the time of alleged offence at about 7.00 p.m. on 02.10.2019, while the Excise officials conducted patrolling duty is also not at all impossible to secure Government Official as independent local inhabitant mediators from the scene of offence place situated near Ambedkar Statue, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal to strengthen the seizure of ID liquor.

21)In view of the above evidence of P.W.1, it clearly shows that he did not make any efforts to secure mediators and seizure of the ID liquor. More over the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful whether they found the accused while he is in possession of said contraband at the alleged place of offence.

22)Basing on the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official it is not possible to come to conclusion that the seizure of the said possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor though possession of accused is established. From the oral evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution mainly relied upon the Ex.P1 special report. I have perused it as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P1 It is clear that the accused confessed his guilt before the police which is in admissible in the eye of law as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence, I am of considered view that Ex.P1 can’t be taken into consideration to meet the accused liable for an alleged offence.

23)The evidence of P.W.1 revealed that P.W.1 forwarded 300 ml of I.D liquor to the Chemical Examiner Regional Prohibition Excise, Kakinada for analysis and report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition Excise, Kakinada for confiscation and destruction of contraband property. P.W.1 categorically stated that he did not obtain any receipt to show that he handed over the same to the Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. P.W.1 also not filed the property destruction order or memo before this court. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he forwarded the same to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and after receipt of chemical examination report P.W.1 filed charge sheet, FIR and Chemical Examination report

before this court.

24)In view of the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to connect the accused with the alleged offence and the arguments submitted by the defence counsel admittedly the said possession of Five Liters of I.D. Liquor and on sight of raid party, after taking the sample was produced before this Court. Basing on oral evidence of P.W.1, it is not possible to come to just conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused. In the absence of independent evidence and I am of a considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police personal and interested 4 witnesses cannot be taken into consideration to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Moreover seizure of the said contraband from the possession of the accused is not established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case the evidence of P.W.1, M.O.1 sample was seized and pasted with identification slips under cover of Ex.P1 special report from the possession of the accused to strengthen the seizure of the said contraband is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.

25)For the fore going reasons I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

26)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1:S.V. Prakash Kumar

For Defence:None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Special report. Ex.P.2:First Information Report Ex.P.3:C.E. Report.

For Defence : NIL

Material Objects

M.O.1:Sample bottle

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate :: Prathipadu

C.C.181/2021

Date of Offence: 02.10.2019

Date of Report : 02.10.2019

Date of arrest of Accused : 02.10.2019

Date of Release of accused on bail: 09.10.2019

Date of commencement of Trial : 22.03.2022

Date of close of Trial: 04.04.2022

Date of sentence or order: 12.04.2022 Crime No. and Name of the P.S: Cr.No.608/2019 of Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prathipadu Name of the Complainant: State : Inspector of P & E Police, Prathipadu P.S Name of the accused:Pilli Nageswararao, S/o Apparao, Age 58 years, Caste/SC(Mala), R/o:Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal Offence: U/Sec. U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PRATHIPADU

PRESENT: Sri V.Gopala Krishna, J.F.C. Magistrate, Prathipadu Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022 CALENDAR CASE NO : 669 /2021 Between: The State Represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu …. Complainant.

And

Uggirala Nageswara Rao, S/o: Yedukondalu, Age 45 years, Caste/Yadavas, R/o: Seethammapeta Village, Sankhavaram Mandal …… Accused.

This case is coming on 04.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri R.Chitti Babu, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.144/2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2)The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

On 11.03.2020 at about 2.10 p.m. under the instructions of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Kakinada along with P.W.1 and his staff L.W.2/Ch.V.N. Reddy, Enforcement Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu on reliable information conducted patrolling with a view to detect Prohibition and Excise Offences and when they reached at GRO Junction, situated at over bridge down, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and found the accused while he is in possession of liquor bottles in gunny bag along with motorcycle and on seeing the raid party, the accused turned back and trying to escape on the motorcycle, P.W.1 stopped him with the help of his staff and questioned about the contents of bag, for which the accused stated that some duty paid liquor bottles in the bag and P.W.1 tried to secure the mediators, but in vain and he got opened the bag in the presences of staff and found Thirty bottles of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ML each and all the bottles with full of liquor and company cap seal and on enquiry the accused confessed that he purchased the contraband from unknown persons at his village and P.W.1 explained the above offence and arrested the accused, seized the contraband from his possession under cover a Special report drafted at the scene of offence and P.W.1 drawn one bottle from each brand as sample and affixed identity slips, duly signed by them and accused. Basing on the special report P.W.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.144/2020 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and the accused was sent to this Court for Judicial custody and later he was released on bail.

During the course of investigation the P.W.1 sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh.& Excise, Kakinada for analysis. After due analysis the Chemical Examiner opined in C.E.No.709/2020 dated 26.05.2020, Sl.No.9266 is “Indian Made Liquor”. The balance case property (except samples) along with HF Deluxe Hero Motorcycle with registration No.AP05 CN 9855 produced before the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada for confiscation as per the provisions of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 by P.W.1 and the case property destroyed as per the Proceedings of the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada on 20.05.2020 2

before the mediators and Excise Officials and after completion of investigation P.W.1 is filing

charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.

3) This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4)On appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which he denied the charge punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined one witness as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3 and got produced M.O.1 sample bottles.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the incriminating evidence leveled against him. When he call upon to enter upon defence evidence, he reported no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf and got marked no documents on behalf of defence.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT :-

10)The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 for illegal possession of liquor bottles with out any license or permit.

11)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1/S.V. Prakash Kumar who is the then Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu deposed that on 11.03.2020 at about 2.10 p.m. himself and L.W.2/Ch.V.N. Reddy, Enforcement Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu conducted patrolling duty at GRO Junction, situated at fly over bridge down, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and they noticed the accused found the accused while he is in possession of liquor bottles in gunny bag along with motorcycle and on seeing the raid party the accused tried to escape on suspicion and questioned the accused about the contents of gunny bag and the accused revealed that it contained IML Bottles. Then he deputed L.W.2/Ch.V.N. Reddy, Enforcement Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu for securing mediators and after some time L.W.2/Ch.V.N. Reddy, Enforcement Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu was returned and stated that village elders are not available to act as mediators. They opened the bag and found Thirty bottles of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ML each and on enquiry the accused revealed his name and address particulars and confessed the offence and after explaining the grounds of arrest, arrested the accused and seized the contraband under cover of Ex.P1 Special Report. He took one bottle which is marked as M.O.1 and he returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property and he registered Ex.P1 Special Report as Ex.P2 F.I.R. and he produced the accused before this Court along with remand report for judicial custody. During the course of investigation he sent the sample bottle to the Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. Ex.P3 CE Report and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3

In his cross-examination P.W.1 deposed that himself and his staff only to the scene of offence place situated at GRO Junction, situated at bridge down, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and the scene of offence place is situated in a busy locality and he did not issue summons to the witnesses. P.W.1 deny the suggestion that, they did not go to the scene of offence place and no property seized from the possession of accused and he is deposing false.

13)The learned APP for prosecution argued that the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused by examining P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3 in support of production of M.O.1 sample bottle and requested the Court to convict the accused according to law.

14) The learned counsel for accused argued that the accused is the poor man, he is innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and the case is foisted only for a statistical purpose. The learned defence counsel for the accused further argued that Ex.P1 was brought into existence as if the P.W.1 and his staff found the accused while he is in possession of liquor bottles and on seeing the raid party, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and consistence evidence and failed to produce the evidence to the confidence of the court.

15)The learned counsel for the accused further argued that in the absence of independent eye witnesses the accused can’t be convicted basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official and hence pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

16)The learned counsel for accused relied upon the decision reported in 2006 Part-I ALD (Crl.) page No.254 Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition. “Wherein their Lordship that Search and seizure- Failure to follow proper procedure – Effect – Accused found in possession of ID liquor – Conviction under Section 8(b) of Act– Confirmed in appeal - Revision - Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at police station and took them along with them to scene of offence situate at distance of three kilometers – As disclosed by Panchanama no attempt made to secure independent respectable witnesses of locality which is at a distance of 25 yards from scene of offence – Failure to follow the procedure for search as contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. While seizing plastic bag containing ID liquor - Seizure made is illegal – PW.2, mediator in whose presence plastic bag containing ID liquor was seized, turned hostile – Both Courts below relied upon self serving testimony of Excise Officials and found accused guilty – In absence independent evidence, evidence of Excise Officials cannot be relied upon – Revision allowed. Conviction and – sentence set aside 100(4)”.

17)In view of the above arguments advanced by the defence counsel I am of the opinion that the court has to see that whether the possession of liquor bottles and on seeing the raid party from the accused tried to escape is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As can be seen from the charge sheet averments and the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the scene of offence place at GRO Junction situated at fly over bridge down, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal and the accused is found while he is in possession of liquor bottles and on seeing the raid party the accused ran away, but raid party caught accused absconded from the scene of offence and the time of alleged offence is at about 2.10 p.m. on 11.03.2020, while the Excise officials conducted patrolling duty is also not at all impossible to secure one independent local inhabitant mediators from the scene of offence place situated at Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal to strengthen the seizure of liquor bottles in that regard.

18)The contention of P.W.1 is that he drafted the Ex.P1 and seized M.O.1. In his cross- examination of P.W.1 deposed that himself and his staff only proceeded to the scene of offence 4 i.e., at GRO Junction, situated at Bridge down, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal at about 2.10 p.m caught hold the accused. P.W.1 deny the suggestion that they did not go to the scene of offence place and they did not arrest the accused and no property is seized from the possession of accused.

19)Basing on the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the police official it not possible to come to conclusion that the seizure of the said possession of total forty seven liquor bottles from the possession of accused is established. From the oral evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution mainly relied upon the Ex.P1 mediators report. I have perused it as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P1 it is clear that the accused confessed his guilt before the police which is in admissible in the eye of law as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence, I am of considered view that Ex.P1 can’t be taken into consideration to meet the accused liable for an alleged offence.

20)For the fore going reasons I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

21)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1:S.V. Prakash Kumar

For Defence:None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Special Report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3:Chemical Examiner Report For Defence : NIL Material Objects M.O.1 :Sample bottles

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial First Class of Magistrate :: Prathipadu

C.C.669/2021

Date of Offence:11.03.2020

Date of Report :11.03.2020

Date of arrest of Accused :11.03.2020

Date of Release of accused on bail:17.03.2020

Date of commencement of Trial :22.03.2022

Date of close of Trial:04.04.2022

Date of sentence or order:12.04.2022 Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.144/2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu Name of the Complainant:State : Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu

Name of the accused:Uggirala Nageswara Rao, S/o: Yedukondalu, Age 45 years, Caste/Yadavas, R/o: Seethammapeta Village, Sankhavaram Mandal Offence:U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437- A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

1 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni

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

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: TUNI::

PRESENT :- Sri. V. Gopala Krishna

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tuni.

Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.2594, 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018

Between:-

Ayinavilli Satyanarayana, S/o Venkataraju, aged 60 yrs, Cultivation, R/o D.NO. 5-12-66, Bathayithota veedhi, Tuni Town, Tuni Mandal. …… Petitioner/Complainant

and

Yenugula Narayanarao, S/o Late Lakshmana Dora, aged 65 yrs, Cycle shop business, R/o D.No.1-63-21, Ward No.3, Yenugulavari street, Ammajipeta, Tuni Town, Tuni Mandal. ….Respondent/Accused

This petition is coming before this Court on 11.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Narasimha Murthy and Sri. I. Madhu Babu, advocates for Petitioner/Complainant and Sri. P. Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent/Accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

1) These petitions are filed by the petitioner/complainant under section 294 & 311 of

Cr.P.C to receive the listed documents and mark them as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.16, on behalf of petitioner, by re-opening the evidence of PW1.

2) The contentions of both the petitions are that the petitioner filed the main case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, basing on dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent/accused herein stating that the respondent/accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge of sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24 % per annum on demand either to the complainant or to his order and executed an on demand promissory note dated 25.01.2017. On repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 968031

dated 13.04.2018 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of petitioner/complainant

drawn on Canara Bank, Yerrakoneru Branch, Tuni Mandal on his account towards part 2 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni payment of the above referred debt. When the petitioner deposited the cheque for collection on 25.04.2018 in his account in Union Bank of India, Tuni Branch. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “Signature differs”. Then the petitioner issued a registered legal notice dated 10.05.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

The respondent/accused received the said notice and failed to comply with the same or to give any reply. The petitioner/complainant filed his chief-examination affidavit as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 documents. Whereas, the petitioner also filed a civil suit in OS. No. 37/2020, on the file of this court against the present respondent/accused, in which he is the defendant and he admitted that he used to sign in English for some times and in Telugu for some times and the signatures on various documents filed by himself are self contradictory and proves the malafide intention of the respondent/accused. In the said case, in written statement he signed in Telugu and in chief-examination affidavit he signed in English. Likewise, in other documents also somewhere he signed in English and some other where he signed in Telugu. All the above documents were confronted to the present accused during his cross-examination held on 08.04.2024 in the above suit. Hence the delay was occurred in filing the listed documents and the same may be condoned by receiving the listed documents viz., written statement in OS. 37/2020, counter in IA 32/2020 in OS. 37/2020, sale deed dt.

17.11.2014 in favour of respondent herein, petition in IA. 296/2020 in OS 37/2020; specimen signatures; RTGS application dt. 04.11.2020; chief-examination and cross- examination of DW1 in OS. 37/2020; cheque dt.05.01.2017 issued in favour of one

Marisetti Satish; cheque dt.08.08.2017 issued in favour of one Kurrella Venkata Rao;

Commercial Taxes department intimation to the accused dt. 05.06.2016; and to mark them as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.16. Therefore, the petitioner prays to reopen the evidence of

PW1 and receive the above documents and mark them as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.16, for the purpose of marking the above documents.

3) Upon receiving the notice, Respondent/Accused has filed counter by denying the petition averments and interalia contended that all the documents are certified copies taken without obtaining proper permission from the court, hence they cannot be marked.

The respondent/accused filed those documents before the court for comparison of his 3 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni signature, but the court did not send the documents to the hand writing expert and the entire record kept in the court record. The complainant suppressed the facts and obtained the certified copies. The petitioner also did not explain proper delay in filing of this petition. At this stage the petition is not maintainable. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

4)The learned counsel for respondent/accused filed written arguments and contended that under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 simply because a document is in the “custody” of a court does not transform a private document into a public document. The document is marked only after it is proved according to the rules of evidence. If a document was merely “filed” in court A, but never “marked”, it remains private document. Therefore, a certified copy of such a document is generally inadmissible unless the original’s loss is accounted for and the document’s contents are proved independently. The counsel relied upon decisions reported in Gopal Das and

another Vs. Sri Thakurji and others in Privy Council Appeal No. 35 of 1940:

Allahabad Appeal No. 3 of 1936 wherein it was held that :

(a) Civil P. C. (1908), O. 13, R. 3-Objection as to mode of proof must be taken before document is marked and not in appeal for first time. Where the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the 9 trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of appeal and then complaint for the first time of the mode of proof.

5) The learned counsel for petitioner/complainant filed reply written arguments and contended that the plea of accused contends that the documents remain private documents merely because they were filed, but not marked in the civil suit. But as the originals of public documents are admissible in evidence as primary evidence but they have to be proved under sections 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act. Certified copies under section 65(e) carry a presumption of genuineness under section 79, but this applies to the copy’s authenticity, not necessarily the truth of contents unless part of official acts. The accused argues that certified copies are secondary evidence

requiring proof of original loss under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

This is incorrect for public documents. Admissions duly proves are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or 4 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements. Hence, the petition under section 294 Cr.P.C., is maintaible, as these documents are essential for arrival of just decision, proving the accused inconsistent signatures and rebutting the dishonour ground. Delay is also bonafide, post cross- examination in the civil suit.

6) Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the listed documents U/sec. 294 of Cr.P.C., on to file and to mark them as exhibits, on his behalf, by condoning the delay, as prayed for?”

7) POINT:

Section 294 Cr.P.C.,

Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

 The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.  “Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed”, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed; Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

a) In view of the averments of both the parties, a perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and the present petition is filed to receive the listed documents i.e., written statement, counter, cross of DW1 in OS 37/2020 and to mark them on behalf of the petitioner to arrive just decision. But the petitioner himself stating about the classification of nature of documents as public and private documents. To decide the listed the documents as public or private it was clearly mentioned in :

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines "public documents" as records forming the acts or official records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, and public officers (legislative, judicial, or executive) in India, the Commonwealth, or foreign countries. It also includes public records kept in any state of private documents.

5 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni

Key Aspects of Section 74:

 Definition: Documents created by public officials in the discharge of their duties or records maintained for public inspection are considered public documents.  Examples: Registered deeds, court judgments, charge sheets (sometimes disputed), electoral rolls, and official government records.  Purpose: These documents are easily admissible in court as evidence due to their official nature.  Secondary Evidence: Under Section 76 and Section 77, certified copies of these documents are admissible as proof, often without needing the original author to testify.  Contrast: Documents that do not fall under this definition are classified as "private documents" under Section 75.

b)This court relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1926 Nagpur 339.

c)As per Sec. 74 of Indian Evidence Act, “a plaint is not a public document and so it ought to be proved like any other private document”.

c)As per the citation – AIR 1942 Oudh 303, “the written statement is also not a public document”. As per the citation reported in AIR 1942 Madras 558, Execution

Petitions or Counter-Affidavit is not a public document. Affidavits cannot be taken in evidence under any provision of the Evidence Act and copies thereof also cannot be taken in evidence – AIR 1977 Delhi- 73. Moreover, proof of document has to be objected before it is received in evidence and marked as Exhibits.

d)Hence, as per the above citations, some of the documents filed by the petitioner are not public documents, because those are not created by public officials. Though some are created by public officials, Section 294 Cr.P.C., clearly states that where the genuineness of document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed; Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

e)As per the above provision of law in Sec. 294 Cr.P.C., it is only mentioned about the deciding of genuineness of the documents, but, no where it was mentioned about receiving or marking of any of the documents. Further, the contention of respondent that “The respondent/accused filed those documents before the court for comparison of 6 Crl.M.P.No.2594 & 2595/2025 in C.C.No.344/2018 dt.23.04.2026; JFCM Court, Tuni his signature, but the court did not send the documents to the expert and the entire record kept in the court record. “The petitioner/complainant suppressed the facts and obtained the certified copies.” and as stated by the respondent, the petitioner even did not explain the reason for delay in filing the documents properly, which raises doubt in the contention of the petitioner. Simply praying of condone the delay in filing of the documents could not be considered to condone the delay and it should be properly explained on what circumstances the delay was occurred or else it would reflect that the petitioner filed this petition to develop his case, basing on the subsequent circumstances. Therefore, the delay can also not condoned basing on simple contentions, which shows negligence on the part of the petitioner.

f) Section 311 of Cr.P.C., :- “As the court may summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness”. Though the section of law 311 Cr.P.C., empowers the court to summon any person to examine, in the present case on hand, the purpose of re-open of evidence of PW1 as prayed for is to mark certain documents filed along with the petition in Crl.M.P. 2594/2025, on the file of this court, but this court is not inclined to receive the documents, as such, there is no necessity to re-open the evidence of PW1, hence, this court is not inclined to allow these petitions.

8)In the result, the petitions are dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

xxsd/- V. Gopala Krishna

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TUNI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

xx sd/- V. Gopala Krishna JFCM/Tuni

Digitally Signed by

VEERAVALLI GOPALA

VEERAVALLI GOPALA KRISHNA

KRISHNADate: 2026.04.23 15:41:57 +0000