Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR 

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019

DATE OF :­

Offence: 21.04.2018

Complaint: 21.04.2018

Apprehension of accused: 21.04.2018

Released on bail: 21.04.2018

Commencement of trial: 24.06.2019

Close of Trial : 13.03.2020

Sentence or order: 17.03.2020

Explanation for delay: Due to non­production of witnesses in time.

Name of the Complainant: State:­The Proh. & Excise Sub­Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Tuni. Name of the accused :

Thangella Srinivasa Rao, S/o Jayyanna, 44 years, C/Uppara, P.E.Chinnaipalem Village, Thondangi Mandal.

Offence: Under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

Finding: Found not guilty. 

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil

Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, for favour of information.

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tuni.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019

Between: State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Tuni. …Complainant And: Thangella Srinivasa Rao, S/o Jayyanna, 44 years, C/Uppara, P.E.Chinnaipalem Village, Thondangi Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 13.03.2020 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.V.V.Ramana and Sri Ch.Rajesh, Advocates for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.130/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Tuni, registered against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of the

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 on the basis of Ex.P.1 special report.

2.PW.3­the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Tuni, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise

Act, 1968 with the following averments:

3.PW.1­the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, AC Enforcement, Kakinada, along with one Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada, (LW.1), went for conducting patrolling for detection of prohibition and excise offences on 21.04.2018 at about 11.30 A.M. at P.E.Chinnaipalem Village of Thondangi Mandal and they found the accused while he was in possession of 1) two (2) MC dowells No.1

VSOP brandy nip bottles, 2) one (1) MC dowells No.1 luxury whisky nip bottle and 3) three (3) kingfisher strong beer 650 ml bottles, in all six bottles in a mica bag and the accused failed to produce any bill or permit for the said liquor bottles. Then PW.1 deputed the said Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada, (LW.1), to secure mediators but it was in vain. On questioning the accused, he revealed his identity. Later, PW.1 drew one bottle from each brand, in all three bottles, as samples for the purpose of analysis and sealed and labelled the sample bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted thereat by him,

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

as no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, PW.1 brought the accused, the case record and the case property to the P&E Station Tuni, and handed over the same to PW.2 for further investigation. Basing on the said Ex.P.1 report, PW.2 registered a case against the accused under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued

Ex.P.2­FIR. He produced the accused before the Court for remand. He sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under Ex.P.3 letter of advice. Later, PW.3 took up further investigation in this case from PW.2 and received

Ex.P.4 analysis report indicating that the said sample bottles are Indian Made Liquor.

After completion of further investigation, PW.3 laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above

Section of law. 

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against the accused. 

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 was framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence. 

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of a mica bag containing liquor bottles?

2) Whether the said mica bag containing liquor bottles is seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law?

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

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

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence?

POINT NOS.1 TO 4:

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, collecting, or possessing or selling any intoxicant without any licence or permit in that regard and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law. 

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, PW.1 stated that he along Sri

Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada (LW.1), went for conducting patrolling on 21.04.2018 at about 11.30 A.M. at P.E.Chinnaipalem Village of Thondangi Mandal and they found the accused while he was in possession of 1) two (2) MC dowells No.1 VSOP brandy nip bottles, 2) one (1) MC dowells No.1 luxury whisky nip bottle and 3) three (3) kingfisher strong beer 650 ml bottles, in all six bottles in a mica bag and he failed to produce any bill or permit for the said liquor bottles; and that he deputed Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement,

Kakinada (LW.1), to secure the independent mediators and he went to

P.E.Chinnaipalem Village and after some time he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators; and that on questioning the accused, he revealed his identity and later he drew one bottle from each brand, in all three bottles, as samples for the purpose of analysis and sealed and labelled the sample bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted thereat by him as none came forward to act as mediators; and that he brought the accused, the case record and the case property to P&E Station, Tuni, and handed over the same to PW.2 for further investigation.

12.During the course of cross­examination of PW.1, he stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not try to secure the presence of independent mediators either before their departure at their station or before reaching the scene of offence; and that he did not issue any written notices to Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E

Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada (LW.1), sought to be served on the independent mediators, like, Sarpanch or MPTC or Ward Member or VRA and he (LW.1) did not

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

state before him the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so; and that no separate confessional statement was recorded from the accused and no separate seizure list was also prepared at the scene of offence and the seized property is readily available for sale in open market and there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report as to who drafted it. He however denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any patrolling on the date of the alleged offence and he prepared the entire case record at P&E Station, Tuni, for the purpose of this case; and that a false case was foisted against the accused for the purpose of statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.

13. The evidence of PW.2, who was the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence demonstrates that on 21.04.2018 at about 02.00 P.M. he received the accused, case property and case record from PW.1 for further investigation and basing on the said Ex.P.1 report, he registered a case against the accused under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued Ex.P.2­FIR; and that he produced the accused

before the Court for remand and he sent the samples (M.O.1) to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under Ex.P.3 letter of advice and later PW.3 took up further investigation in this case.

14.During the course of cross­examination of PW.2, he stated that he had not visited the scene of offence and there was delay of 18 days in reaching samples to the chemical examiner for analysis and the said delay was not properly explained in the charge sheet. He however denied the suggestion that he had not properly verified the investigation done by PW.1 and he laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court for the purpose of this statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.

15. There remains the evidence of PW.3, who was also the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence demonstrates that he took up further investigation in this case from his predecessor­PW.2 and he received Ex.P.4 analysis report and after completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. During the course of cross­examination of PW.3, he stated that he had not visited the scene of offence and there was delay of 18 days in reaching samples to the chemical examiner for analysis and the said delay was not properly explained in the charge sheet. He however denied the suggestion that he had not properly verified

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

the investigation done by PWs.1 and 2 and he laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court for the purpose of this statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.

16.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

17.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so­called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

18.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.1 sent Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad,

P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada (LW.1), to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was seized but he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators. In the cross­examination of PW.1, he categorically deposed that he had not issued any written notices to Sri Ch.Ravi Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada (LW.1), sought to be served on the mediators and he (LW.1) did not state before him the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.1 sent Sri Ch.Ravi

Prasad, P&E Constable, AC Enforcement, Kakinada (LW.1), to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, PW.1 is an Excise Official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was stated in the evidence before the

Court that the scene of offence is a busy locality. According to the provisions of

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 the colour and special identification marks of the mica bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed. 

19.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non­examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

20.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

21.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non­examination of the independent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

22.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the samples were reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 10.05.2018 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 21.04.2018 when the alleged samples were drawn. Thus, there was a delay of about 18 days in reaching samples to the Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

23.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the

Excise Officials­PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of one mica bag containing liquor bottles and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of excise officials does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures.

Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 4 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

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

Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI. 

C.C.NO.284 OF 2019 I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Sri T.Niranjana Rao, P&E Sub­Inspector, Ac Enforcement, None Kakinada.

PW.2: Sri A.V.V.Prasad, P&E Sub­Inspector, Tuni.

PW.3: Sri U.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Sub­Inspector, Tuni.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Special report.Nil

Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.130/2018.

Ex.P.3: Letter of advice.

Ex.P.4: Analysis report dated 10.05.2018.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 is a set of three sample bottles.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR 

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020

DATE OF :­

Offence: 08.11.2019

Complaint: 08.11.2019

Apprehension of accused: 08.11.2019

Released on bail: 11.11.2019

Commencement of trial: 10.03.2020

Close of Trial : 11.03.2020

Sentence or order: 18.03.2020

Explanation for delay: Due to non­production of witnesses in time.

Name of the Complainant: State:­The Proh. & Excise Sub­Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Tuni. Name of the accused :

1) Bathina Rambabu, S/o late Nooka Raju, 51 years, C/Settibalija, K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal.

2) Kadiyala Eswara Rao, S/o Bhulokam, 32 years, C/Settibalija, Srirampuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

Offence: Under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

Finding: Found not guilty. 

Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil

Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, for favour of information.

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tuni.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020

Between: State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Tuni. …Complainant And:

1) Bathina Rambabu, S/o late Nooka Raju, 51 years, C/Settibalija, K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal.

2) Kadiyala Eswara Rao, S/o Bhulokam, 32 years, C/Settibalija, Srirampuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 11.03.2020 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Krishna Sekhar and Smt.A.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocates for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.443/2019 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Tuni, registered against the accused for the offence under Section 7A read with

Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 on the basis of Ex.P.1 special report.

2.PW.1­the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Tuni, laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following averments:

3.PW.1 along with PW.2­Sri R.V.K.N.Murthy, P&E Head Constable, Tuni, went for conducting patrolling for detection of prohibition and excise offences on 08.11.2019 at about 09.00 A.M. at K.O.Mallavaram Village of Tuni Mandal, and they found the accused while they were in possession of 1000 litres of F.J.Wash and 30 litres of

I.D.Liquor in violation of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995. On questioning the accused, they revealed their identity. Then PW.1 deputed PW.2 to secure mediators but it was in vain. Then PW.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband. Later, he drew 500 ml of F.J.Wash and 300 ml. of I.D.Liquor into two separate bottles as samples for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottles as well as the remaining seized property under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted thereat by him, as none came forward to act as mediators. Then, the remaining F.J.Wash was

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

destroyed at the spot as it is not fit for transportation. Basing on Ex.P.1 report, PW.1 registered a case against the accused under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Ex.P.2­FIR. Then he produced the accused

before the Court for remand. He sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice and received Ex.P.4 analysis report indicating that the said F.J.Wash was fit for distillation and the said

I.D liquor was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of further investigation, PW.1 laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thereby, the accused are liable for punishment under the above Section of law. 

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused. 

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. and they denied the offence. Charge under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed and read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence. 

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of F.J.Wash and one mica bag containing I.D.Liquor and ?

2) Whether the said F.J.Wash and mica bag are seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence ?

POINT NOS.1 TO 4:

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in producing, manufacturing, storing, collecting, purchasing, selling or transporting of arrack and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law. 

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, PW.1 stated that he along with PW.2 went for conducting patrolling for Prohibition and Excise Offences on 08.11.2019 at about 09.00 A.M. at K.O.Mallavaram Village of Tuni Mandal and they found the accused while they were in possession of 1000 litres of F.J.Wash and 30 litres of I.D.Liquor therein; and that on interrogation, the accused revealed their identity, and then he deputed PW.2 to secure mediators and he went to

K.O.Mallavaram Village and after some time he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators; and that he arrested the accused after informing them about the grounds therefor and seized the contraband and later he drew 500 ml of F.J.Wash and 300 ml. I.D.Liquor into two separate bottles as samples for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottles as well as the remaining seized property under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted thereat by him as none came forward to act as mediators; and that then, the remaining F.J.Wash was destroyed at the spot as it is not fit for transportation; and that he brought the accused, the case record and the case property to the Prohibition and Excise Station, Tuni, and basing on Ex.P.1 report, he registered a case against the accused under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Ex.P.2­FIR and he produced the accused before the Court for remand; and that he sent the samples (M.O.1) to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice and after receipt of

Ex.P.4 analysis report and after completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused.

12.During the course of cross­examination of PW.1, he stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not try to secure the presence of independent mediators either before their departure at their station or before reaching the scene of

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

offence; and that he did not issue any written notices to PW.2 sought to be served on the independent mediators, like, Sarpanch or MPTC or Ward Member or VRA and

PW.2 did not state before him the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so; and that no separate confessional statement was recorded from the accused and no separate seizure list was also prepared at the scene of offence; and that there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report as to who drafted it and there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report that he drew the samples in clean, empty and dry bottles and there was a delay of 42 days in reaching the samples to the

Chemical Examiner and the said delay was not explained properly in the charge sheet.

He however denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any patrolling on the date of the alleged offence and he prepared the entire case record at his station for the purpose of this case; and that a false case was foisted against the accused for the purpose of statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged.

13.Turning to the evidence of PW.2, his evidence is well­nigh akin to that of the evidence of PW.1. 

14.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they are charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged and that the accused were brought from their house and this case was foisted falsely against them for statistical purpose.

He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so­called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

16.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.1 sent PW.2 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in the possession of the accused but after some time he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators. In the cross­examination of

PWs.1 and 2, they categorically deposed that PW.1 had not issued any written notices to PW.2 sought to be served on the mediators and PW.2 did not state before PW.1 the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.1 sent PW.2 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, PWs.1 and 2 are Excise

Officials and their evidence manifestly demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was stated in the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened.

Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the colour and special identification marks of the mica bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

17.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non­examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

18.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

19.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non­examination of the independent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 

20.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the samples were reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 20.12.2019 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 08.11.2019 when the alleged samples were drawn. Thus, there was a delay of about 42 days in reaching the samples to the Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

21.The another legal infirmity in this case is that PW.1 is the complainant and he investigated into the crime and laid the charge sheet before the Court in this case. The said course of action adopted by PW.1 is against the settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AIR 2018 SC 3853] and our Hon'ble High Court in P.SATYAM REDDY v. STATE OF A.P.

[2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 66].

22.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the

Excise Officials­PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused were found in possession of F.J.Wash and

I.D.Liquor and the same were seized from their possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of excise official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures.

C.C.NO.139 OF 2020I A.J.M.F.C. COURT, TUNI.

Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 4 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

23.In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. Accused

Nos.1 and 2 are directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Sri U.Srinivasa Rao, P&E Sub­Inspector, Tuni.None

PW.2: Sri R.V.K.N.Murthy, P&E Head Constable, Tuni.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Special report.Nil

Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.443/2019.

Ex.P.3: Letter of advice.

Ex.P.4: Analysis report dated 30.12.2019.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 is a set of two sample bottles.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 6th day of December, 2024.

O.S.NO.71/2020

Between Kumpatla Nagarjuna, Son of Satyanarayana, Door No.2-6, Age 34 years, Business, Edarapalli, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Vali, Son of Shaik Malki Mohammed, Door No.3-103, Age 53 years, Business, near Manchineela Cheruvu Gattu, Allavaram Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. …Defendant.

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 22.11.2024 in the presence of Sri G.V.V.S.N.Gupthaa,Advocate for the plaintiff, and the defendant having remained ex parte and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is instituted by the plaintiff basing on the registered unpossessory mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, seeking the following reliefs, namely, 1) to grant a preliminary decree for recovery of the suit claim of Rs.5,50,386/- together with costs thereof and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum which is the contractual rate by granting appropriate time for redemption if the defendant fails to pay the amount as directed by the Court; 2) on failure to do so, to grant a final decree for the amount so granted by the Court along with subsequent interest and costs, by bringing the plaint schedule properties to sale; 3) to further grant a decree against the other movable and immovable properties if any belonging to the defendant if the suit claim is not satisfied from the plaint schedule properties; 4) to grant a personal decree against the defendant if the mortgaged property and other properties belonging to the defendant are not sufficient to satisfy the

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

2 decree so passed; and 5) to grant costs of the suit and subsequent interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation at the contractual rate.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015 for his family necessities and for business investments agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a registered mortgage deed dated 27.05.2017 (sic ‘26.05.2015’); and that as per the terms and conditions of the said mortgage deed, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be paid in four yearly instalments, and the due dates for repayment of the principal amount is 25.05.2016, 25.05.2017, 25.05.2018 and 25.05.2019; and that the defendant agreed for payment of the entire interest accrued by 25.05.2016 along with Rs.50,000/- of the mortgage amount as the first instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay out of the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2017 of the mortgage amount as the second instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay out of the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2018 of the mortgage amount as the third instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2019, and the defendant agreed to pay the amount with compound interest with yearly rests; and that the defendants further agreed that for the realisation of the said amount, the defendant executed the said mortgage deed, and if he failed to pay the amount due under the said mortgage deed by the date of instalments, the plaintiff is having right to recover the entire amount without waiting for subsequent instalments, and the plaintiff is having right to recover the same from the properties mortgaged by the defendant and also other movable and immovable properties of the defendant; and that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the mortgaged properties, and the defendant received the consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015, and the defendant signed and got registered the mortgage deed

dated 16.05.2015 (sic ‘26.05.2015’) vide document No.3058/2015 and handed

over the same to the plaintiff; and that the defendant failed to pay the first

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

3 instalment of Rs.50,000/- with interest by 25.05.2016, and the defendant did not pay single instalment out of the said four instalments; and that the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant to pay the entire amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- with yearly compound interest as per the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed on 20.12.2017, and the defendant received it on 21.12.2017, and again the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant on 09.08.2018, and the defendant received it on 11.08.2018, and again the plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 21.02.2019, and the defendant received it on 27.02.2019 and kept quiet, and the defendant did not choose to pay any amount therefor and he did not prefer to given any reply thereto; and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the contractual rate, and debt relief laws have no application to the defendant. Hence, the present suit.

3.On the contrary, the defendant filed a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint on the ground that the same are not true, valid and binding on him. It is averred therein that the present suit itself is not maintainable under law, and it stood for legal scrutiny, and there was no debtor and creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant never borrowed the amount and mortgaged the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time; and that the defendant has no interest and title over the plaint schedule properties as his name was mentioned as benami in the said registered sale deed as all the joint family members purchased the plaint schedule properties from out of the joint family funds and mentioned his name as a manager of the family; and that there was no consideration in the said mortgage deed, and the attestors and the scribe are the henchmen of the plaintiff, and there was no need or necessity for the defendant to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, as the defendant is having sufficient means to maintain his family members; and that the purpose mentioned in the plaint that the defendant borrowed the amount for his business purpose but the defendant did not do any business, which clearly showed the

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

4 falsity of the case of the plaintiff. It is thus prayed for dismissal of the present suit with exemplary costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial:

1) Whether the registered mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

5.It may be mentioned here that after PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff, and the present suit is coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant on 07.05.2024, 09.05.2024, 28.06.2024, 08.07.2024, 16.07.2024, 24.09.2024, 30.09.2024, 29.10.2024 and 11.11.2024, when the defendant was called absent before the Court during the call work in the morning session and the learned counsel for the defendant reported no instructions from his client on the ground that his client was not responding to his calls in order to proceed further with the matter, and therefore he requested the Court to take next step in the matter. Hence, the matter was passed over and it was again called at 12.30 P.M., 01.30 P.M., 03.30 P.M. and 04.30 P.M. but yet again the defendant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf before the Court from any other quarter. Not only that, as can be seen from the record it was clear that the present suit was coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant from 07.05.2024 onwards but since then the defendant was not present before the Court and thereby he was not reporting readiness to proceed with the matter. Thus, it appeared that the defendant was not interested to prosecute this case vigilantly and diligently anymore according to law, for the reasons best known to him. That is how, the defendant came to be set ex parte on 11.11.2024 and it was posted for arguments to 22.11.2024.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

5

ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:

7.As can be seen from the material available on record, it is obvious that the plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and is thus examined-in-chief as PW.1, who reiterated almost his plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on his behalf. Ex.A.1 is the registered mortgage deed

dated 26.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.A.2 is

the registered sale deed dated 16.05.2015 standing in the name of the defendant; Ex.A.3 is the office copy of the registered notice dated 20.12.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; Ex.A.4 is the postal receipt dated 20.12.2017 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.5 is the postal acknowledgement received from the defendant; Ex.A.6 is the office copy of the registered notice

dated 09.08.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; Ex.A.7 is the postal

receipt dated 09.08.2018 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.8 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant; Ex.A.9 is the office copy of the registered notice dated 21.02.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; and Ex.A.10 is the postal acknowledgement received from the defendant. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 by the learned counsel for the defendant, he reported cross-examination of PW.1 as ‘nil’.

8.PW.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 mortgage deed, filed his evidence affidavit supporting the case of the plaintiff and he was examined-in-chief as such. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2 by the learned counsel for the defendant, again he reported cross-examination of PW.2 as ‘nil’. Thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Then the present suit was coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant. As narrated hereinabove in detail, the defendant came to be set ex parte on 11.11.2024.

9.At this stage it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court rendered in THAKKAR VRAJLAL BHIMJEE v. THAKKAR JAMNADAS

VALJEE [(1994) 4 SCC 723] wherein while considering the question as to

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

6 whether the mortgage deed was proved in accordance with law or not, it was held illuminatingly held thus:

“3. In Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh v. Thakur Behari Singh, it has been held that one of the essentials of mortgage deed is that each of the attesting witnesses must have signed the document in the presence of the executant. The Court held that if the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Registration Act and Sections 3 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and read together, there was no escape from the conclusion that a mortgage deed was required to be proved by producing at least one of the attesting witnesses. In view of this decision the judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. …......”

From a perusal of the said Judgment, it is crystal clear that for proving the mortgage deed at least one of the attesting witnesses is also required to be examined before the Court.

10.That being so, it is also imperative to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in ISHWAR DASS JAIN (DEAD) Thr. LRs. v. SHONA

LAL (DEAD) By Lrs. (AIR 2000 SC 426) wherein while considering the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it was held inter alia thus:

“Under Section 68, if the execution of a document required to be attested is to be proved, it will be necessary to call an attesting witness, if alive and subject to the process of Court and is capable of giving evidence. But in case the document is registered - then except in the case of a will - it is not necessary to call an attesting witness, unless the execution has been specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. This is clear from Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

……...

……… In fact, in his evidence as DW2 the defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage. It must therefore be taken that there was no specific denial of execution. Hence it was not necessary for the plaintiff to

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

7 call the attestor into the witness box, this not being a will. The plaintiff could therefore not be faulted for not examining any of the attestors.

Hence the mortgage stood proved by the certified copy. The Courts below were right in accepting that the deed was proved. Point 2 is decided in favour of plaintiffs-appellants.”

Keeping the said settled law in mind and looking at the facts of the case at hand, it is manifest that Ex.A.1 is the registered unpossessory mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015. Not only that, initially the defendant engaged a counsel, filed his written statement, participated in the trial upto the stage of examination of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff, and later he remained ex parte for the reasons best known to him, as discussed hereinabove, it must be construed that the defendant admitted the execution of the said registered mortgage deed, and in such an event it must also be construed that there was no specific denial of the execution of the said registered mortgage deed. In that view of the matter, non-examination of one of the attestors of the said registered mortgage deed is not at all fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

11.That apart, the defendant was set ex parte as stated above in detail. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff as PWs.1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015 by executing Ex.A.1 registered unpossessory mortgage deed in respect of the mortgaged properties, and thereafter he failed to repay the same. Furthermore, prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff also got issued Exs.A.3, A.6 and A.9 legal notices to the defendant, who received it vide Exs.A.5, A.8 and A.10 postal acknowledgements, and kept mum for the reasons best known to him. Thus, the said evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the defendant did not prefer to disprove the claim of the plaintiff by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. Not only that, the defendant did not choose to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2 for the reasons best known to him. Thus, there is no other material available on record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In the light of the discussion made herein

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

8

before and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the humble and considered view that this suit is liable to be decreed with costs, but as the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is some what excessive and exorbitant in view of the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff for the purpose of family necessities and for business investment, this

Court feels that the rate of interest may be scaled down from 24% per annum to 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree.

Issue Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

12.In the result, the suit is decreed to the extent indicated above with costs by granting preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,386/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand three hundred and eighty six only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). Three months time is granted for redemption. Any failure thereto by the defendant, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the plaint schedule properties by way of final decree by following the due process of law.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1: Kumpatla Nagarjuna.None

PW.2: Venuthurupalli Venkata Subbarao.

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

9

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A.1: Registered mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015Nil executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Registered sale deed dated 16.05.2015 standing in the name of the defendant. Ex.A.3: Office copy of the registered notice dated 20.12.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.4: Postal receipt dated 20.12.2017 addressed to the defendant. Ex.A.5: Postal acknowledgement received from the defendant Ex.A.6: Office copy of the registered notice dated 09.08.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A.7: Postal receipt dated 09.08.2018 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.8: Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant Ex.A.9: Office copy of the registered notice dated 21.02.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A.10: Postal acknowledgement received from the defendant.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, KOTHAPETA.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

(FAC) Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothapeta.

Tuesday, this the 20th day of August, 2024

C.C.NO. 220 /2024

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Gannavaram Police Station. …Complainant.

And: Nedunuri Satyanarayana, S/o Marini, Aged 42 years, Caste-SC Madiga, Prabhaladibba,Mungandapalem,P.GannavaramMandal, Aadhar No.435283304133. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 16.08.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.D.Prasad,Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.276/2021 of P.Gannavaram Police

Station registered against the accused for the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, as amended by A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, (for brevity 'the APP Act, 1995') on the basis of Ex.P.1 occurrence report.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Gannavaram Police Station (LW.4), laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the

APP Act, 1995 with the following averments:

3.On 28.10.2021 at about 12.00 Noon PW.1 received credible information about the illegal possession and selling of ID arrack at Prabaladhibba of

Mungandapalem Village in P.Gannavaram Mandal, and immediately he along with his staff members-PC-541 Sri S.Chinna and PC-3530 Sri

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 2 D.V.V.Satyanarayana (LWs.1 and 2) went to the scene of offence whereat they found that the accused was in possession of a plastic bag containing ID arrack in violation of the provisions of the APP Act, 1995, and on seeing them he tried to run away therefrom. Then they chased him and caught hold of him, and on questioning he disclosed his identity particulars, and confessed that he purchased the said ID arrack from an unknown person. Then PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain. PW.1 verified the said bag and found 10 liters of ID arrack therein. He arrested the accused and he also drew 200 ml of ID arrack from the seized property as sample for the purpose of analysis and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1 occurrence report drafted thereat. Basing on Ex.P.1 report, he registered a case against the accused under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the APP Act, 1995 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR. He also examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. Then he produced the accused before the Court for remand. Later he handed over the further investigation to the Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.Gannavaram Police Station (LW.4), who took up further investigation.

He sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice and received Ex.P.4 analysis report indicating that the said ID arrack was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

After completion of further investigation, he (LW.4) laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

4.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offence under

Section 7B read with Section 8B of the APP Act, 1995 against the accused.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under Section 7B read with

Section 8B of the APP Act,1995 was framed and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu by my learned predecessor for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 3

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused is found in possession of a plastic bag containing ID arrack therein at the scene of offence ?

2) Whether the said ID arrack is seized from the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the APP Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) Whether the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the said offence?

POINT NOS.1 TO 4:

10.In order to make out an offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the APP Act, 1995, the prosecution shall prove that the accused is found in preparing, selling, exporting, importing or transporting of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

11.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, the evidence of PW.1 demonstrates that on 28.10.2021 at about 12.00 Noon, while he was present in the police station he received credible information about illegal possession and selling of ID arrack at Prabaladhibba of Mungandapalem Village in

P.Gannavaram Mandal, and immediately he along with his staff members (LWs.1 and 2) proceeded to scene of offence whereat they noticed the accused who

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 4 was in possession of a plastic bag containing ID arrack in violation of the provisions of the APP Act, 1995; and that on seeing them he tried to run away therefrom and he chased him and caught hold of him and he questioned him and he disclosed his identity particulars, who is the accused herein, and on verification of the said bag he found 10 liters of ID arrack therein and arrested him; and that he tried to secure the presence of independent mediators but it was in vain, and he drew 200 ml. of I.D arrack from the seized property as sample for the purpose of analysis; and that he drafted Ex.P.1 occurrence report and he subscribed his signature thereon, and he also got affixed identification slips on the sample and the remaining seized property, and he brought the accused, the case property and the case record to the police station and basing thereon he registered a case and issued Ex.P.2 FIR; and that he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, and he produced the accused

before the Court for remand, and later he handed over the further investigation

to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Gannavaram Police Station (LW.4), who took up further investigation; and that he sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada, for analysis under the cover of Ex.P.3 letter of advice, and received

Ex.P.4 analysis report indicating that the said I.D. arrack was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, and he sent requisition to the confiscating authority for destruction of the remaining seized property, and he received the destruction proceedings and destroyed the remaining seized property; and that after completion of further investigation, he (LW.4) laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused.

12.During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality, and he had not summoned either

VRO or VRA concerned; and that he had not mentioned the physical features of the accused in Ex.P1 report, and at the time of arrest of the accused, no general public gathered there; and that he had not examined the person from whom the accused was alleged to have purchased the seized property, and the signature of the accused was not appearing either on Ex.P.1 report or on the identification

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 5 slip affixed on the sample bottle. He however denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused after the date of arrest till now, and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.Gannavaram Police Station (LW.4), had not properly verified the investigation done by him, and a false case was foisted against the accused for the purpose of statistics.

13.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged; and that the accused is brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

15.It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.1 along with his staff members (LWs.1 and 2) went to the scene of offence. In the evidence of PW.1, he stated that he tried to secure independent mediators but it was in vain and he did not categorically depose that as to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so; and that he had not summoned either VRO or VRA concerned. It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.1 tried to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused at the scene of offence. Even otherwise, PW.1 is a police official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that he did not make any sincere efforts to

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 6 secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was obvious from the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy and residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of PW.1 the colour and special identification marks of the plastic bag which is said to have been seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence is also not deposed.

16.In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the

A.P.Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. …......The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. …...... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt……”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise

Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1,

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 7 Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise

Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing

I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/ witnesses in this case from the locality whereat the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 20.11.2021 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 28.10.2021 when the alleged sample was drawn. Thus, there was a delay of 23 days in reaching the sample to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P.

[2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the police official-PW.1, who is very much interested in the outcome of the case as no independent witnesses were examined in support of his case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of a plastic bag containing ID arrack therein at the scene of offence, and the same was seized from the accused at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the

Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 8 with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT NO.4:

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7B read with Section 8B of the APP Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offence. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under

Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram. (FAC) Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kothapeta.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For defence PW.1: B.Murali Mohan Krishna, HC-2810.None

Documents marked

For Prosecution For defence Ex.P.1: Occurrence report.Nil Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice. Ex.P.4: Chemical analysis report.

M.Os. marked

M.O.1 is sample bottle.

C.C.NO.220/2024 CJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, KPT. 9

Sd/-Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram. (FAC) Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kothapeta.

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 29th day of November, 2024.

C.C.NO.458/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Rural Police Station. … Complainant.

And: Tirukoti Vijay Kumar, S/o Narasimhamurthy, Age 29 years, Ambedkar Nagar, Nadipudi Village, Amalapuram Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 27.11.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Venkanna, Advocate, for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.34/2024of Amalapuram Rural Police

Station registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the basis of a report of PW.1.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Rural Police Station (LW.8), laid the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused with the following averments:

3.PW.1 is living along with her family members at Nakkavaripeta,

Bandarulanka Village of Amalapuram Mandal. Her love marriage was performed with the accused on 23.12.2020 in the presence of the Pastor and the relatives on either side as per the Christian customs. At the time of marriage, the accused took dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. After marriage, PW.1 joined the conjugal society of

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 2 the accused, and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a daughter. While so, from the last one month the accused used to harass PW.1 both mentally and physically, and he used to abuse her and beat her, and he also demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from the house of her parents. As PW.1 is unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused, she came back to the house of her parents. While so, on 01.02.2024 at about 01.00 P.M. the accused came to the house of the parents of PW.1 to take back his daughter and at that time the mother of PW.1 admonished him on the ground that he remembered about his daughter after long time and thereby she refused him to take back his daughter. Thereby, the accused abused PW.1 and her mother, and he also beat them with hands and insulted their modesty. Then PW.1 lodged a report before the police and basing thereon the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Amalapuram Rural Police Station (LW.8) registered a case, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined PW.1 and recorded her detailed statements. He also visited the scene of offence, observed the same and drew rough sketch thereof. He also examined PW.2 and five other listed witnesses (LWs.2 and 4 to 7) and recorded their detailed statements.

Later he served a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. on the accused and released him on station bail. After completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment under the above Sections of law.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused.

5. After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offences. Charges under Section 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 3

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.As there were no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution, the examination of the accused as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10.Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court, the evidence of PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, discloses that on 23.12.2020 her marriage was performed with the accused at his house as per Christian rites and caste customs, and after marriage she joined the conjugal society of the accused at his house at Nadipudi Village and they lived together happily for sometime; and that out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter, and subsequently, in

February, 2024 petty disputes arose between her and the accused, and they placed the matter before the elders, and the elders settled the matter and at that time they obtained her signature on a report; and that the signature (Ex.P.1) shown to her appearing on a report was belonged to her but she did not know the contents thereof, and police never examined her and never recorded her detailed statement. As she turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution having deviated from her previous version as stated in Ex.P.2 (Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Statement), the learned APP cross-examined her with the permission of the Court but nothing noteworthy was elicited from her in support of the case of the prosecution. However, in the cross-examination, PW.1 unequivocally stated that they compromised the matter with the accused at the advice of the village elders.

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 4

11.The evidence of PW.2 is well-nigh akin to that of PW.1. As he too turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution having deviated from his previous version as stated in Ex.P.3 (Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Statement), the learned APP cross-examined him with the permission of the Court but nothing noteworthy was elicited from him in support of the case of the prosecution.

However, in the cross-examination, PW.2 categorically stated that they compromised the matter with the accused at the advice of the village elders.

12.It is therefore manifest from the above evidence that PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned APP cross-examined them with the permission of the Court, nothing noteworthy was elicited from them in support of the case of the prosecution but in the cross- examination they unequivocally stated that they compromised the matter with the accused before the village elders. In view of the above, the learned APP also gave up the evidence of the remaining six other listed witnesses, including one official witness in this case. In the light of the same and having due regard to the fact that PWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution, as can be culled out from the above evidence, even if the remaining witnesses including one official witness, whose time is precious, are examined before the Court in this case, no useful purpose would be served. On the other hand, the examination of the said official witness would only cause hardship to him and also cause inconvenience for discharging his regular official duties. Not only that, in SATISH MEHRA v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [(1996) 9 SCC 766] the

Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held thus:

“But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. …......”

13.At this juncture, it is also apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in MANOHAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH [AIR 2014 SC 3649] whereinthe Hon'ble Supreme Court while

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 5 considering the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 inter alia held that if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, the same can be considered because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society, unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc.

14.Having due regard to the said Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and turning to the facts of the case on hand as narrated hereinbefore, it is evident that as the material witnesses-PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, perhaps in view of the fact that they compromised the matter with the accused at the advice of the village elders, this case would not certainly end in conviction and on the contrary the valuable time of the Court would be wasted if the other listed witnesses are examined before the Court in this case. As a corollary thereof, there is no scintilla of evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he is charged.

15.It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which shall be in force for a period of

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 6 six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Tirukoti Meerabhi.None PW.2: Bondala Surya Narayana.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1.Nil Ex.P.2: Statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3: Statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.NO.458/2024 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.458/2024

Date of Offence: 03.02.2024 Date of Report : 03.02.2024 Date of arrest of Accused : 27.04.2024 Date of release on bail: 27.04.2024

Date of commencement of Trial : 27.11.2024 Date of close of Trial: 27.11.2024 Date of sentence or order: 29.11.2024 Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Rural Police Station.

Name of the accused: TirukotiVijayKumar,S/o Narasimhamurthy, Age 29 years, Ambedkar Nagar, Nadipudi Village, Amalapuram Mandal.

Offence: under Section 498A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Plea of Accused: Not guilty Finding : Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.