Sri V.sanketh Mithra

Page 1 of 5

CC No.919 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 1 st day of May, 2023)

Present: Sri V. SANKETH MITHRA,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 919 OF 2020

(Cr.No.221/2020 of PS Garidepally)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Garidepally. …Complainant A N D

Gugulothu Kanthi W/o Balu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Lumbathanda H/o Seethla thanda village of Garidepally Mandal. …Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2023 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri Ch. Krishnaiah, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub.Inspector of Police, Garidepally Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.221/2020 for the offence under Sec.

34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that on 09.10.2020 during morning hours, on credible information LW6/M. Jafar Baig, Sub-Inspector of Police along with LW1/N.Srinu, PC3001, and LW2/L.Ramana, WPC 4010 and LW3/Ch.Srikanth HG 903 rushed to Lumba thanda and raided on house of Gugulothu Kanthi and on seeing the police one person tried to escape and on that immediately, LW2 caught hold her and searched the

Page 2 of 5

CC No.919 of 2020

house and found black Jaggery and Alum in her house. Immediately, LW6 secured the presence of LW4/Gugulothu Babu and LW5/Gugulothu Krishna and in their presence LW6 interrogated her and on interrogation, revealed her name as Gugulothu Kanthi and further she confessed that she used to go

Coolie works, but she is not getting sufficient income to run her family, as such she started to purchase black jaggery and alum and also she used to manufacture the I.D liquor and selling the same to needy persons for wrongful gain. Thereafter, LW6 seized the 130 Kgs of black Jaggery and 30

Kgs of alum from the possession of the Gugulothu Kanthi(accused) under the cover of panchanama and drawn the samples from each contraband.

Thereafter, LW6 brought the accused along with seized contraband to the

Police station.

3.Basing on the above, LW6 registered a case in Crime No.221/2020 for the offence U/sec.34(e) of Telangana Excise Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW3 and served Sec.41-A (1) Cr.P.C notice on accused directing her to appear before him within three days to ascertain facts of the case. On 15.10.2020, the accused appeared before him, on such appearance, LW6 served Sec.41-A(3) Cr.P.C, directed her to appear

before the Court, after receipt of summons. Later, LW6 forwarded the

samples to FSL for chemical analysis report. Thereafter, LW7/Venkanna,

Sub-Inspector of Police took up the CD file for further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW6 and found it on property lines. After receipt of FSL report and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.

Page 3 of 5

CC No.919 of 2020

4.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/sec. 34(e) of Telangana

Excise Act. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the accusation under

Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. Police failed to serve the summons of LW7, despite grant of sufficient time. Hence, their evidence is closed. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2.

7.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

8.Heard the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point for consideration is:- “Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence Sec.34(e) of Telangana Excise Act?”

POINT:

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW1 & PW4 who are police personals deposed that on 09.10.2021 at about 10.00 A.M, they along with LW2 accompanied the LW6/Jafar Baig and proceeded to Lumba

Page 4 of 5

CC No.919 of 2020

thanda H/o Seethlathanda. Meanwhile, LW6 received a credible information that one Gugulothu Kanthi possessing the I.D liquor and black jaggery at her house and on searching the house of the accused, they found 130 Kgs of black Jaggery and 30 kgs of alum and LW6 seized the contraband in the presence of PW2 and PW3. Thereafter, brought the contraband to the police station. Further, the prosecution also examined PW5 who is investigation officer and he deposed in the similar lines of charge sheet. But, the panch witness PW2 and PW3, in whose presence the Police seized the contraband and conducted the scene of offence and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused, turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and further testified that their signatures obtained on a white paper at police station. As the prosecution case is not supported by independent witness no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Police official and their evidence is formal one without its independent Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized from possession of accused, thereby the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

34(e) of Telangana Excise Act and she is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 01st day of May, 2023)

Page 5 of 5

CC No.919 of 2020

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:14:25 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 Ch.Srikanth, eye witness. P.W.2 Gugulothu Babu, Panch witness. P.W.3 Gugulothu Krishna, Panch witness. P.W.4 N.Srinu, eye witness. P.W.5 M.J.Baig, 1st I.O.

FOR DEFENCE : -- NIL --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Confession cum seizure panchanama dated: 09.10.2020. Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama dated: 09.10.2020. Ex.P3: Panchanama dated: 09.10.2020. Ex.P4: F.I.R. Ex.P5: FSL Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- Nil -- M.Os. Marked. – NIL – VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:14:45 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 27 th day of April, 2023)

Present: Sri V. SANKETH MITHRA,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Huzurnagar …Complainant. A N D

A1: Banoth Srinu @ Cheppulu Leni Srinu S/o Bhashya, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Lali thanda of Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District. A2: Banoth Manju S/o Keshya, Age: 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Krishna thanda of Mattampally Mandal. …Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2023 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri M. Anjaiah, legal aid counsel for the Accused, and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Huzurnagar, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 23.02.2022, LW3/P.

Venkanna, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, received reliable information about illegal transportation of ID liquor in four wheeler of TATA ACE bearing No.AP24TC1846 by one Banoth Srinu @ Cheppulu Leni Srinu (A1). On that, LW3 along with his staff and conducted route watch at outskirts of Lali thanda to Krishna thanda and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW1/Banoth Rajesh, LW2/Bhukya Babu and searched the

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022 vehicle of the A-1 and found 40 liters of I.D. liquor containing in a plastic cane and 11 gunny bags of black jaggery each bag containing about 50 Kgs total 550 Kgs of black jaggery and 50 Kgs of alum and on enquiry the accused confessed that he used to purchase the I.D liquor from nearest thandas and selling the same to the needy persons. Immediately LW3 drawn the two samples from the contraband for chemical analysis and seized the said property under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators.

Thereafter, LW3 brought the seized property along with accused A1 and A2 and samples to the Excise station and registered a case vide PCOR

No.52/2022, U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana prohibition Act and 34(e) of

Telangana Excise Act against the Accused No.1 and 2. LW4/P. Shyam sundar, Prohibition and Excise Inspector issued notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and deposited the case property before Dy.Commissioner of

Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and forwarded the drawn samples for chemical examination to F.S.L. After receipt of F.S.L report and after completion of investigation LW4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused expressed their inability to engage advocate as such legal aid counsel is appointed on behalf of accused.

04.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, they denied their involvement in the said offence. Hence,

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022 charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

05.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. Excise officials failed to serve summons of LW2, LW4, as such their evidence is closed.

06.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

07. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and legal aid counsel for the accused.

08.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged?

POINT:

09.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-4. PW.1 is the panch witness and PW2 is the I.O. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama, dated: 23.02.2022.

Ex.P2 is the panchanama, dated: 23.02.2022. Ex.P3 is the PCOR

No.52/2022, Ex.P4 is the FSL Report.

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW2 who is the first

Investigation Officer has reiterated the contents of chargesheet, but the

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022 panch witness PW1 in whose presence the Excise officials seized the contraband did not support the prosecution case and further testified that his signature obtained at excise station. As the prosecution case is not supported by independent witnesses no reliance can be placed on the testimony of excise official and his evidence is formal one without its independent

Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized at his house and thereby prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused No.1 and 2 for the charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

12.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of

Telangana Excise Act and they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2023.)

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.04.27 20:49:40 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No. 1251 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Banothu Rajesh, panch witness. PW-2: P.Venkanna, Investigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW1 on seizure panchanama, dated: 23.02.2022. Ex.P-2: Panchanama, dated: 21.06.2022. Ex.P-3: PCOR No.52/2022. Ex.P-4: FSL Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.04.27 20:49:51 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No.1252 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 01 st day of May, 2023)

Present: Sri V. SANKETH MITHRA,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 1252 OF 2022

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Huzurnagar …Complainant A N D

A1: Megawath Shanthi W/o Surya, Age: 36 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Gurrampode thanda of Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.

A2: Banoth Manju S/o Kesya, Age: 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Krishna thanda of Mattampally Mandal. …Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2023 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri M. Anjaiah, legal aid counsel for the Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Huzurnagar, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 26.02.2022, LW3/

P.Venkanna, Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, received reliable information about illegal possession and manufacturing of I.D liquor and black Jaggery by one Megawath Shanthi (A1). On that, LW3 along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No.1252 OF 2022 two mediators i.e., LW1/Banoth Shankar, LW2/Dharavath Hussain and searched the house of the A-1 and found 5 liters of I.D. liquor in a white plastic cane and 150 Kgs of black jaggery in 3 bags and each bag containing 50 Kgs in A-1 house and on enquiry the accused confessed that accused No.2 used to manufacture the I.D liquor and she used to sell to the needy persons and also the accused No.2. Immediately LW3 drawn the two samples from the each contraband for chemical analysis and seized the said property under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, LW3 brought the seized property along with accused No.1 and registered a case in COR No.56/2022, Dated:

26.02.2022 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telanganan Excise Act against the Accused and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW4 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and deposited the case property before Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and forwarded the drawn samples for chemical examination to F.S.L. After receipt of F.S.L report and on completion of investigation LW4 filed charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused No.1 & 2, copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 & 2 expressed their inability to engage advocate as such legal aid counsel is appointed on behalf of accused.

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No.1252 OF 2022

04.The accused No.1 & 2 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, they denied their involvement in the said offence. Hence, charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act and 34(e) of Telanganan Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

05.During the course of trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. Excise officials failed to serve summons of LW2 and LW4, despite grant of sufficient time, as such their evidence is closed.

06.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

07. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and legal aid counsel for the accused.

08.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which he is charged?

POINT:

09.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-4. PW.1 is the panch witness and PW2 is the I.O. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama, dated: 26.02.2022.

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No.1252 OF 2022 Ex.P2 is the panchanama, dated: 26.02.2022. Ex.P3 is the PCOR

No.56/2022, Ex.P4 is the FSL Report.

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW2 who is Excise official has reiterated the contents of charge sheet, but the panch witness in whose presence the Excise officials seized the contraband did not support the prosecution case and further testified that his signature obtained at Excise station. As the prosecution case is not supported by independent witnesses no reliance can be placed on the testimony of excise official and his evidence is formal one without its independent

Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused No.1 and 2 with the contraband seized at their house and thereby prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act and Sec.34(e) of Telangana Excise Act.

12.In the result, accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and 34(e) of

Telangana Excise Act and they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 01st day of May, 2023.)

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:16:07 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No.1252 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Banothu Shankar, panch witness. PW-2: P. Venkanna, Investigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW1 on seizure panchanama, dated: 26.02.2022. Ex.P-2: Panchanama, dated: 26.06.2022. Ex.P-3: PCOR No.56/2022. Ex.P-4: FSL Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:15:49 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5

OS No. 159 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HUZURNAGAR

This, the 01 st day of May, 2023

Present:- Sri V. SANKETH MITHRA, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

O.S.No.159 OF 2016

BETWEEN: Smt. Sk. Saibee W/o Khaja Mohinuddin, Age about: 55 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Chinthalammagudem village H/o Pedaveedu village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Plaintiff AND

Sk. Hussain S/o Bade Saheb, Age about: 37 years, Occ: Business and construction contractor, R/o Chinthalammagudem village H/o Pedaveedu village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 11.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Ravi Kumar,Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri P.Chandraiah, counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,593/- with future interest and to award costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant are relatives and out of such relationship on 10.11.2013, the defendant borrowed and received an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff for his house construction expenses and on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note by agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the plaintiff has demanded the defendant several times to repay the promissory note amount along with interest but, the defendant went on

Page No.2 of 5

OS No. 159 of 2016

postponing the payment of suit amount to the plaintiff with an intention to evade the same. Finally, on 14.07.2016 he got issued legal notice to repay the promissory amount along with accrued interest. The defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any reply to the said legal notice, as such, filed this suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement and contended that in the month of

June, 2016, the defendant repaid the total amount along with interest and after payment of promissory note amount, the defendant requested the plaintiff to to return the promissory note, but the plaintiff postponing in return the promissory note and later some family disputes arose in between the defendant and plaintiff and by keeping the dispute in mind of the plaintiff, she got issued legal notice to the defendant through his advocate and after receipt of the said legal notice, the defendant placed the matter before the elders and the plaintiff agreed to return the promissory note to the defendant, but later he filed this false suit against him, as such prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. After going through the pleadings following issues are framed for trial.

i. Whether the defendant discharged the promissory note amount along with interest?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount along with the costs as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined PW-1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A4. Defendant did not choose to adduce his evidence as such defendant evidence is closed.

6. Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Since there is no representation

Page No.3 of 5

OS No. 159 of 2016

for defendant arguments treated as heard.

7.ISSUE NO (i):

In order to answer this issue, the initial burden is on the defendant and he has to prove that he discharged the amount under the promissory note, but despite grant of sufficient adjournments, the defendant failed to adduce his evidence. In these circumstances, the issue answered against the defendant.

8.ISSUE NO (iI):

A perusal of the recitals of Ex. A-1 clearly reveals that defendant has borrowed amount of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.11.2013 and further agreed to repay the said sum with interest @ 24 % per annum. Ex.A2 is the

Legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the promissory note amount along with interest through register post under Ex.A3 and the defendant received the same under Ex.A4.

9. The chief examination of P.W-1 is nothing but a reiteration of the plaint averments and hence the version spoken by the plaintiff in his chief examination affidavit needs no reproduction. In support of the PW1, scribe of Ex.A1 examined as PW2 and deposed that he was present at the house of the plaintiff on 06.11.2013 and the defendant borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a Ex.A1 and he scribed the said document. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement, but failed to cross examine the PW1 & PW2 and thereby their testimony is remained unchallenged.

10. Thus, the plaintiff by adducing documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A4 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W-1 & PW2 clinchingly establishes the

Page No.4 of 5

OS No. 159 of 2016

borrowing of the amount of Rs.10,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24 % per annum. Accordingly, issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.ISSUE NO (iii):

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.16,593/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred ninety three only) with interest @ 12 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 01st day of May, 2023).

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:17:33 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.5 of 5

OS No. 159 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1: Bantu Saidulu. -- NIL-- PW-2: Balaboina Nagamani. PW-3: Dasari Punnaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1: Original promissory note, Dated: 05.06.2019. Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice, Dated: 02.12.2020. Ex.A-3: Postal receipt, dated: 04.12.2020. Ex.A-4: Postal Acknowledgment card, dated: 05.12.2020.

FOR DEFENDANT

-- NIL-- VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti SankethSanketh Mitra MitraDate: 2023.05.01 22:17:42 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No. 182 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 27 th day of April, 2023)

Present: Sri V. SANKETH MITHRA,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 182 OF 2022

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Huzurnagar …Complainant. A N D

Peraboina Nagaraju S/o Kotaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mangapuram thanda of Garidepally Mandal. …Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 24.04.2023 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri M.Anjaiah, legal aid counsel for the Accused, and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Huzurnagar, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 24.09.2021 at about 07:30 PM, LW3/P.Venkanna, Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, received reliable information about illegal possession and manufacturing of

I.D liquor by one Peraboina Nagaraju (Accused). On that, LW3 along with his staff proceeded to the outskirts of the Regulagadda thanda of Garidepally

Mandal and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW1/Shudanaboina

Gopi, LW2/Enti Ravi. Meanwhile, one person was coming on Hero honda

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No. 182 OF 2022 bike namely peraboina Nagaraju (Accused) and on search found 2 liters of

I.D. liquor in a plastic cane and 10 Kgs of alum and on enquiry the accused confessed that he used to purchase the I.D liquor from nearest thanda and selling the same to the needy persons. Immediately LW3 drawn the two samples from the contraband for chemical analysis and seized the said property under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators.

Thereafter, LW3 registered a case in PCOR No.81/2021, Dated: 24.09.2021 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana prohibition Act against the Accused and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW3 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and deposited the case property before Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition &

Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and forwarded the drawn samples for chemical examination to F.S.L. After receipt of F.S.L report and after completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused expressed his inability to engage advocate as such legal aid counsel is appointed on behalf of accused.

04.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, he denied his involvement in the said offence. Hence, charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act was

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No. 182 OF 2022 framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

05.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. Excise officials failed to serve summons of LW1, as such his evidence is closed.

06.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

07. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and legal aid counsel for the accused.

08.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged?

POINT:

09.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-4. PW.1 is one of the panch witness and PW2 is the Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the seizure panchanama, dated: 24.09.2021, Ex.P2 is the panchanama, dated:

24.09.2021. Ex.P3 is the PCOR No.81/2021, Ex.P4 is the FSL Report.

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, panch witness examined as PW1, but his testimony did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Further, examined PW2, who is the Investigation officer has

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No. 182 OF 2022 reiterated the contents of charge sheet in his testimony. As the PW1 did not support to the case of prosecution, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of excise official and his evidence is formal one without its independent Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized and thereby prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

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

Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under

Sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2023.)

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.04.27 20:48:50 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No. 182 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: E. Ravi, panch witness PW-2: P. Venkanna, I.O.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the seizure panchanama, dated: 24.09.2021, Ex.P2 is the panchanama, dated: 24.09.2021. Ex.P3 is the PCOR No.81/2021, Ex.P4 is the FSL Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

VanagantiDigitally signed by Vanaganti Sanketh SankethMitra MitraDate: 2023.04.27 20:49:03 +0530 Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar