Smt V Silpa

1 APCH020004352022

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR DIVISION) CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt V.Silpa, VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor Monday, This Eleventh (11th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.286 of 2022

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bangarupalyam Police Station.

... Complainant

And

1.R. Rudraiah, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Subramanyam @ R. Subbaiah, Tekumanda Village and post, Bangarupalyem Mandal.

2.R. Chitti Babu, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Ramamurthy, n/o Ramanaathapuram Village, Venkatagiri Kota Mandal,, R/o Jayanthi Colony, Bangarupalyam Mandal.

…...Accused/A1 & A2

This case coming on 01.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri.A. Murali Mohan/Smt. E. Renuka, Advocate

for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2 APCH020004352022

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bangarupalyem Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accusedA1 and A2 for the offence under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020, in Cr.No 201 of 2021 of

Bangarupalyem Police Station.

2.In brief the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a)On 03.07.2021 at about 6:00 PM, on the Balijapalli Service Road near Balijapalli Village, beside the Bangarupalem–Chittoor NH-69 Road, within the limits of Bangarupalem Mandal, the accused namely R. Rudraiah, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Subramanyam @ Subbaiah, resident of Tekumanda Village and

Post, Bangarupalem Mandal; and R. Chitti Babu, aged about 32 years, S/o Late

Ramamurthy, native of Ramanathapuram Village, V. Kota Mandal, and residing at

Jayanthi Colony, Bangarupalem Mandal, were found in illegal possession and transportation of 92 tetra packets of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky, each containing 90 ml, valued at approximately Rs.3,049/-, on a Honda Activa Scooty bearing Registration No. AP03-BS-0076.

(b)It is alleged that the accused were transporting the liquor from the

State of Karnataka without possessing any valid licence or permit issued by the 3 APCH020004352022 competent authority and intended to sell the same to the general public at higher rates for unlawful gain. LW-5/R. Dhananjaya Naidu conducted a raid at the said location, apprehended the accused, and seized the above contraband liquor along with the Honda Activa Scooty under the cover of Police Proceedings dated 03.07.2021 at about 6:00 PM. As no persons came forward to act as mediators, the proceedings were conducted in their absence.

( c )Thereafter, LW-5/R. Dhananjaya Naidu brought the arrested accused along with the seized contraband, namely 92 tetra packets of Original

Choice Deluxe Whisky and the Honda Activa Scooty bearing Registration No.

AP03-BS-0076, to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.201/2021 under Section 34(A) read with Section 34(1) of the A.P. Excise New Amendment

Act on 03.07.2021 at about 7:30 PM. Copies of the FIR were submitted to all concerned officers and investigation was taken up.

(d)During the course of investigation, LW-5/R. Dhananjaya Naidu forwarded the arrested accused to judicial remand on the following day, i.e., on 04.07.2021. LW-6/P. Mallikarjuna Reddy forwarded the seized sample tetra packet of liquor to the Chemical Examiner, Government Prohibition & Excise

Laboratory, Chittoor, under a letter of advice for chemical examination and report.

4 APCH020004352022

Further, the seized liquor was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, SEB,

Chittoor, under a requisition seeking permission for confiscation of the seized property under Section 46 of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 13 of the A.P.

Prohibition Act.

(e)LW-4/K. Ramadevei, the Chemical Examiner, Government

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, after analysing the material objects, issued Chemical Examination Report bearing C.E. No.1040/2021 dated 26.07.2021, opining that the sample bearing No.11,635 was Indian Made Liquor (IML). Thus, the accused A-1 and A-2 are liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) read with Section 34(1) of the A.P.

Excise New Amendment Act for illegally possessing and transporting 92 tetra packets of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky, each containing 90 ml, valued at

Rs.3,049/-, on Honda Activa Scooty bearing Registration No. AP03-BS-0076 for the purpose of illegal sale to the general public for wrongful gain.

Hence, the case.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused/A1 & A2.

5 APCH020004352022

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 & A2, the copies of the documents required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused/A1 & A2.

5.The accused/A1 & A2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused/A1 & A2, its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused/A1 & A2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to them for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A1

& A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond reasonable doubt?

6 APCH020004352022

10. POINT :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused/A1 & A2 are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1. Therefore, the accused/A1 & A2 are liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused/A1 & A2 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused/A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 

12.Perused the record. Out of 06 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 03 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW2/ S. Surendra Babu. LW3/S. Mubarak. LW4/K. Ramadevi. PW.1 is Police

Constable. P.W.2 is Head Constable. PW3 is SI of Police. Ex.P1 is Police proceedings. Ex.P2 is F.I.R. Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4 is requisition letter to Superintendent of Police. M.O.1 is one sample bottle.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act , the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any 7 APCH020004352022 valid license and PW.2 seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused/A1 & A2 under the cover of Police proceedings.

14.As per the evidence of PW1/G. Damodhar Naidu, Police constable deposed that on 03.07.2021 at about 6:00 PM, while LW-5 was present at the

Police Station, credible information was received regarding transportation of illegal liquor. Immediately thereafter, PW1 along with LW-5 and other police staff proceeded to the Balijapalle Service Road near Balijapalle Village, beside the

Bangarupalem–Chittoor NH-69 Road, within Bangarupalem Mandal.

15.PW1 further deposed that at the said location, they noticed A-1 and A-2 travelling on a motorcycle carrying a white plastic bag. On noticing the police party, the accused allegedly attempted to escape from the scene. Entertaining suspicion, the police personnel surrounded and detained them. He further deposed that upon enquiry, A-1 and A-2 disclosed their names and address particulars and confessed that the bag in their possession contained liquor.

16.PW1 further deposed that LW-5 verified the contents of the bag and found 92 tetra packets of 90 ml each of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky, valued at 8 APCH020004352022 approximately Rs.3,049/-. PW1 also stated that the vehicle found at the scene was a Honda Activa Scooty bearing Registration No. AP03-BS-0076. He further deposed that LW-5 collected one bottle containing 90 ml of Original Choice Deluxe

Whisky as a sample for chemical analysis, arrested A-1 and A-2, and seized the contraband under the cover of police proceedings.

17.During cross-examination, PW1 stated that route checks were conducted from about 5:15 PM to 6:00 PM on the date of incident. He admitted that they did not count the number of vehicles checked on that day. He further admitted that the vehicles were checked at the service road and that the distance between the service road and the main road was approximately 20 feet. He further admitted that he along with three other police personnel were present at the scene of offence. He further stated that A-1 and A-2 arrived at the scene of offence at about 6:00 PM. He further admitted that the ownership details of the vehicle were not collected by LW-5. He further admitted that he had not signed on the police proceedings and that no rough sketch was prepared at the scene of offence and denied other suggestions.

18.As per the evidence of PW2/R. Dhanujaya Naidu, Head Constable deposed that on 03.07.2021 at about 6:00 PM, while he was present at the Police 9 APCH020004352022

Station, he received credible information regarding transportation of illegal liquor.

Immediately thereafter, PW2 along with other police staff proceeded to the

Balijapalle Service Road near Balijapalle Village, beside the Bangarupalem–

Chittoor NH-69 Road, within Bangarupalem Mandal.

19.PW2 further deposed that at the said location, they noticed A-1 and A-2 travelling on a motorcycle carrying a white plastic bag. On noticing the police party, the accused allegedly attempted to escape from the scene by leaving behind the bag and the motorcycle. Entertaining suspicion, the police personnel surrounded and detained them. He further deposed that upon enquiry, A-1 and A-2 disclosed their names and address particulars and confessed that the bag contained liquor.

20.PW2 further deposed that he verified the contents of the bag and found 92 tetra packets of 90 ml each of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky, valued at approximately Rs.3,049/-. PW2 also identified the vehicle found at the scene as a

Honda Activa Scooty bearing Registration No. AP03-BS-0076. He further deposed

that he collected one packet containing 90 ml of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky as a sample for chemical analysis, arrested A-1 and A-2, and seized the contraband liquor as well as the vehicle under the cover of police proceedings marked as 10 APCH020004352022

Ex.P1. He further stated that based on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime

No.201/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) read with Section 34(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act and forwarded the original FIR to the concerned

Court, which was marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter, he handed over the case records along with Ex.P1 to LW-6 for further investigation.

21.During cross-examination, PW2 stated that route checks were conducted from about 5:15 PM to 6:15 PM on the date of offence. PW2 admitted that the police did not maintain any count regarding the number of vehicles checked on that day. He further admitted that the distance between the service road and the main road was approximately 20 feet. He admitted that the date of offence did not fall during the Covid period. He further admitted that the ownership details of the vehicle were not collected from A-1 and A-2. He further stated that the scene of offence was a busy locality. He further admitted that no independent witnesses were secured at the scene of offence and that no rough sketch of the scene was prepared. He further admitted that except himself, none of the police staff signed on Ex.P1. He also stated that Ex.P1 was printed at the scene of offence using a printer and admitted that electricity was required for obtaining such printout from the printer and denied other suggestions.

11 APCH020004352022

22.As per the evidence of PW3/P. Mallikarjuna Reddy, SI of Police constable deposed that PW2 handed over the case records along with Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to him for further investigation. He further deposed that he forwarded the sample to

LW-3, the Chemical Examiner, for analysis. The sample was marked as M.O.1. He further deposed that he received the Chemical Analysis Report dated 26.07.2021 from the Chemical Examiner, which was marked as Ex.P3. As per the report, the sample was opined to be “Indian Made Liquor.”

23.PW3 further deposed that he submitted a requisition to the Superintendent of Police seeking permission for destruction of the seized property, which was marked as Ex.P4. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) read with

Section 34(1) of the A.P. Excise Act.

24.During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared. He further admitted that no independent witnesses were secured at the scene of offence and that no complaint was received from any member of the general public against the accused. He also admitted that the signatures of the accused were not obtained on the seized contraband. He further 12 APCH020004352022 stated that after receiving the case records, he did not visit the scene of offence and denied other suggestions.

25.On the other hand, as to why the Investigating officer did not issue any written summons for securing the mediators. No plausible explanation has been placed, they simply stated that they tried for mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. At least they have to say the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. So which clearly established that they did not try for mediators.

The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U.sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C when the inhabitants were very much available, it is bounden duty to secure the said persons as mediators. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the liquor from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings cannot be considered in view of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

26.In a case of our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in 13 APCH020004352022 a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

27.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32 A.P.

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.

28.In the present case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids conducted by PW.2 and his staff, no independent witnesses have been secured or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence, the scene of offence is a busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators and no proof of such act was brought on record. The confession before the police i.e., before

P.W.2. is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence the same cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt. Moreover the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are based upon Ex.P1, on confession of the accused before the police. Hence, the 14 APCH020004352022 contents of Ex.P1, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 will suffer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

29.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused/A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused/A1 & A2. As such, the accused/A1 &

A2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

30.In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, the

accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.83 of 2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly in my personal laptop by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Chittoor.

15 APCH020004352022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Defence side:

PW.1: G. Damohar Naidu -NIL-

PW.2: R. Dhanujayan Naidu

PW3: P. Mallikarjuna Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Defence side:

Ex.P1: Police proceedings. -NIL-

Ex.P2 : First Information Report.

Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

Ex.P4: Requisition letter to Superintendent of Police.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample ID arrack bottle.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor 16 APCH020004352022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Smt V. Silpa, VI Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise:: Chittoor

Date ofExpl OffenceReport or AppreheReleaseCommencClose of Sentence anati Complaintnsion of d on bailement of Trialof Orderon of accusedTrialdela y

and

Rem arks (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 03.07.203.07.20204.07.2006.07.217.09.20211.03.202611.05.2026Due 0211210215to non prod uctio n of witn esse s

Judgment in Calendar Case No:286 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Civil

Judge cum Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court :: Chittoor

Complainant: State its rep by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Bangarupalyem Police Station.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligionCalliResidenceTaluk accusedyearsng (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

1.R. Rudraiah, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Subramanyam @ R. Subbaiah, 17 APCH020004352022

Tekumanda Village and post, Bangarupalyem Mandal.

2.R. Chitti Babu, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Ramamurthy, n/o Ramanaathapuram Village, Venkatagiri Kota Mandal,, R/o Jayanthi Colony, Bangarupalyam Mandal.

Offence: U/s 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act .

Finding: Accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, the

accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.83 of 2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor

1 APCH020028722023

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR DIVISION) CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt V.Silpa, VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor

Friday, This Fifteenth (15th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.1335 of 2023

Between:

State represented by Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban.

... Complainant

And

L. Sangeeth Kumar, aged about 24 years, S/o K. Lokanadham, R/o Pillarikuppam Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

...Accused

This case coming on 04.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri.M. Papaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon 2 APCH020028722023 hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Chitoor urban has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Section 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020, in Cr.No.106 of 2021 of Chittoor Urban.

2.In brief the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a) On 25.03.2021 at about 11:00 AM, during raids conducted by the

Enforcement Sub-Inspector (LW4/P. Govindaswamy) along with LW3/P.

Ayyappa Reddy and other staff at Camfort Yard Shed situated on the road leading from Pillarikuppam to Reppalamanuchenu Village, Gudipala Mandal, a person was found standing near two white urea bags kept in front of him.

On noticing the officials in uniform, the said person allegedly abandoned the bags and attempted to flee from the scene. Though LW4/P. Govindaswamy and the staff chased him in an attempt to apprehend him, he could not be secured.

LW4/P. Govindaswamy, who was acquainted with the individual in connection 3 APCH020028722023 with a previous case, identified the absconding person and disclosed his name and address, which were also confirmed by the mediators.

(b)Thereafter, LW4/P. Govindaswamy secured the presence of two mediators (LW1 and LW2) near the scene, who agreed to act as panch witnesses in the case. In their presence, the two white urea bags were examined and found to contain liquor packets emitting the smell of alcohol.

On verification, the first bag was found to contain 144 tetra packets of “3 Access

Whisky,” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in Karnataka Only,” with

MRP of Rs.55.97/- each. The second bag was found to contain 96 tetra packets of “Carnival XXX Rum (K.B.D),” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in

Karnataka Only,” with MRP of Rs.55/- each. Upon thorough verification, all the tetra packets were found to be non-duty paid liquor.

(c)LW4/P. Govindaswamy drew one tetra packet sample from each brand for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and labeled the samples, and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of a panchanama prepared at the spot in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, LW4/P.

Govindaswamy returned to the station along with the seized property and registered a case in Crime No.106/2021 for the offences punishable under 4 APCH020028722023

Sections 34(1) read with 34(a), 14(2), and 42 of the A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

(d)Subsequently, the samples were forwarded through the Hon’ble

Court to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor, for analysis. The Chemical

Examiner, vide C.E. No.372/2021 dated 27.03.2021, opined that the samples bearing S. Nos.3847 and 3848 were “Indian Made Liquor.” It is further submitted that the accused later surrendered before the Hon’ble Court and was released on bail on 01.07.2021.

(e)The seized property was thereafter confiscated to the State by the

Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau & Confiscating

Authority, Ananthapuramu, vide proceedings in Rc.No.2021/2021/C dated 09.06.2022, and the confiscated property was subsequently destroyed on 22.06.2022. Copies of the confiscation order and destruction panchanama were appended to the record. Thus, it is alleged that the accused was found in possession of non-duty paid liquor and is liable for punishment under Sections 34(1) read with 34(a), 14(2), and 42 of the A.P. Excise Act, 2020.

Hence, the case.

5 APCH020028722023

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents required

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.The Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the

Accused, its contents were explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to him for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

6 APCH020028722023

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 and MO.1. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 

12.Perused the record. Out of 05 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 04 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW5/N. Sreedhar. PW.1 is Police Constable. P.W.2 is Sub-Inspector of Police.

PW3 is mediator. PW4 is another mediator. Ex.P1 is Panchanama. Ex.P2 is FIR.

Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4 is Destruction Proceedings. Ex.P5 is 7 APCH020028722023 signature of PW3 on panchanama dated 25.05.2021. Ex.P6 is signature of PW4 on panchanama dated 25.05.2021. M.O.1 is one sample bottle.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW.2 seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused under the cover of Special Report.

14.PW3 and PW4 are mediators, who did not support the case of prosecution.

15.As per the evidence of PW1/P. Ayyappa Reddy, Police constable deposed that on 25.03.2021 at about 11:00 AM, LW4 conducted raids along with other staff at the Camfort Yard Shed situated on the road leading from Pillarikuppam to Reppalamanuchenu Village, Gudipala Mandal. During the raid, one person was allegedly found standing near two white urea bags kept in front of him.

On noticing the officials, the said person allegedly fled from the scene after abandoning the bags. LW4 identified the absconding person as the accused, namely L. Sangeeth Kumar.

8 APCH020028722023

16.PW1 further stated that LW4 verified the contents of the bags in the presence of mediators and found that the first bag contained 144 tetra packets of “3 Access Whisky,” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in Karnataka

Only,” valued at Rs.55.97/- each, and that the second bag contained 96 tetra packets of “Carnival XXX Rum,” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in

Karnataka Only,” valued at Rs.55/- each.

17.PW1 further deposed that LW4 collected one tetra packet from each bag as sample for chemical analysis, duly sealed and labeled the samples, and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of a panchanama marked as

Ex.P1. PW1 stated that Ex.P1 is the panchanama and that the same was scribed by him at the dictation of LW4.

18.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW1 admitted that there are about 500 residential houses near Pillarikuppam

Village, which is a major Panchayat having Government offices. PW1 further admitted that the height and complexion of the accused were not mentioned in Ex.P1. He also stated that the contraband liquor is available in the open 9 APCH020028722023 market and that the source from which the contraband was allegedly purchased was not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW1 further admitted that the manufacturing date and bar code details on the tetra packets were not mentioned in Ex.P1 and that no rough sketch of the scene was prepared and denied other suggestions.

19.As per the evidence of PW2/P. Govindaswamy, SI of Police deposed that on 25.03.2021 at about 11:00 AM, he conducted raids along with other staff at

Camfort Yard Shed situated on the road leading from Pillarikuppam to

Reppalamanuchenu Village, Gudipala Mandal. During the raid, one person was allegedly found standing near two white urea bags kept in front of him. On noticing the officials, the said person allegedly fled from the scene after abandoning the bags. PW2 stated that, on suspicion, an attempt was made to apprehend him, but the person escaped. PW2 further deposed that he identified the absconding accused and ascertained his name and address particulars.

20.PW2 further stated that he verified the contents of the two white urea bags in the presence of mediators and found that the first bag contained 144 10 APCH020028722023 tetra packets of “3 Access Whisky,” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in Karnataka Only,” valued at Rs.55.97/- each, and that the second bag contained 96 tetra packets of “Carnival XXX Rum,” each of 180 ml capacity, marked “For Sale in Karnataka Only,” valued at Rs.55/- each.

21.PW2 further deposed that he collected one tetra packet from the seized property as sample for chemical analysis, duly sealed and labeled the samples and the property, and thereafter seized the remaining contraband under the cover of Ex.P1. PW2 further stated that, based on Ex.P1, he registered Crime

No.106/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 34(1) read with 34(a), 14(2), and 42 of the A.P. Excise Act Amendment, 2020, and forwarded the original FIR to the concerned Court, which was marked as Ex.P2. He identified

Ex.P2 as the original FIR.

22.PW2 further deposed that the samples were sent to the Chemical

Examiner for analysis and the sample was marked as M.O.1. He deposed that he received the chemical analysis report dated 27.03.2021, marked as Ex.P3, wherein it was opined that the sample was “Indian Made Liquor.” 11 APCH020028722023

PW2 further deposed that the accused obtained bail on 01.07.2021 from the

Hon’ble IX Additional District and Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.399/2021.

23.PW2 also deposed that the seized property was confiscated to the State by the Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Ananthapuramu, vide proceedings in

Rc.No.2021/2021/C dated 09.06.2022, and that the confiscated property was

destroyed on 22.06.2022. The destruction proceedings were marked as Ex.P4, and PW2 identified Ex.P4 as the destruction proceedings.

24.PW2 further stated that, after completion of investigation, LW5 found sufficient material against the accused and accordingly filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 34(1) read with 34(a), 14(2), and 42 of the A.P. Excise Act Amendment, 2020.

25.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW2 admitted that there are about 500 residential houses near Pillarikuppam

Village, which is a major Panchayat having Government offices. PW2 further 12 APCH020028722023 admitted that the height and complexion of the accused were not mentioned in Ex.P1. He also stated that the contraband liquor is available in the open market and that the source from which the contraband was allegedly purchased was not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW2 further admitted that the manufacturing date and barcode details on the tetra packets were not mentioned in Ex.P1 and that no rough sketch of the scene was prepared.

26.PW2 also admitted that no independent witnesses from the locality were examined at the scene and that the mediators were secured from a nearby village. He further stated that no written summons were served upon the mediators. However, PW2 denied the suggestion that the case was falsely foisted against the accused due to political rivalries and also denied the suggestion that the mediators were stock witnesses of the Urban Police Station and denied other suggestions.

27.The prosecution case rests mainly upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are official witnesses connected with the raid and seizure proceedings.

According to their evidence, on 25.03.2021 the accused was found near two 13 APCH020028722023 white urea bags containing non-duty paid liquor and, on noticing the excise officials, allegedly fled from the scene leaving the bags behind. The contraband was seized under the cover of Ex.P1 panchanama and samples were sent for chemical analysis, which confirmed that the seized substance was Indian Made

Liquor.

28.However, the evidence on record discloses several material infirmities creating serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. PW3 and PW4, who were cited as mediators to the alleged seizure and panchanama proceedings, did not support the case of the prosecution. Both the witnesses categorically deposed that they were unaware of the facts of the case and that the police obtained their signatures at the police station without explaining the contents of the panchanama. Though they were treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing useful could be elicited to support the prosecution case. Their evidence substantially weakens the credibility of the alleged seizure proceedings under Ex.P1.

29.Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 also reveals certain omissions and inconsistencies. Both witnesses admitted during cross-examination that

Pillarikuppam is a major Panchayat having around 500 residential houses and 14 APCH020028722023

Government offices nearby, yet no independent local witnesses were secured at the time of the alleged seizure. The mediators were admittedly secured from a nearby village and no written notices were served upon them. The prosecution also failed to explain why no independent witnesses from the locality were examined, despite their availability.

30.It is also admitted by PW1 and PW2 that the height and complexion of the accused were not mentioned in Ex.P1 panchanama. Admittedly, the accused was not apprehended at the scene and the entire case rests upon the alleged identification by the officials. In the absence of any descriptive particulars in the panchanama, the identification of the accused becomes doubtful.

31.Further, PW1 and PW2 admitted that the source from which the contraband was allegedly procured was not investigated or mentioned in

Ex.P1. The manufacturing date and barcode details on the tetra packets were also not noted. No rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared. These omissions assume significance in a case based solely upon official witnesses.

32.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that though conviction can be based upon the testimony of official witnesses, such evidence must 15 APCH020028722023 inspire confidence and should be free from material contradictions and suspicious circumstances. In the present case, the independent mediators having turned hostile, coupled with the absence of corroboration from any independent local witness and the material omissions admitted by PW1 and

PW2, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story.

33.The prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. In the present case, the evidence placed by the prosecution falls short of the standard required for recording conviction.

34.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

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

punishable U/Sec.34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, the

accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment 16 APCH020028722023 as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.346 of 2023, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly in my personal laptop by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Defence side: PW.1: P. Ayyappa Reddy -NIL- PW.2: P. Govindaswamy PW3: V. Chandra Prakash PW4: P. Hemanth

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Defence side: Ex.P1: Panchanama -NIL- Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings. Ex.P5: signature of PW3 on panchanama dated 25.05.2021 Ex.P6: signature of PW4 on panchanama dated 25.05.2021

.MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample ID arrack liqour.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor 17 APCH020028722023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Smt V. Silpa, VI Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise:: Chittoor

Date ofExpla nation OffenceReport or AppreheReleased CommenClose of Sentence of Complainnsion of on bailcement of Trialof Order delay taccusedTrial

and

Remar ks (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 25.03.2021 26.03.20226.03.20201.07.2021 20.01.20224.02.2026 15.05.202Due to non 1166 produ ction of witnes ses

Judgment in Calendar Case No:1335 of 2023 on the file of VI Additional Civil

Judge cum Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court :: Chittoor

Complainant: State its rep by: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligion CalliResidenceTaluk accusedyearsng (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

L. Sangeeth Kumar, aged about 24 years, S/o K. Lokanadham, R/o Pillarikuppam Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. 

Offence: U/s 34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

18 APCH020028722023

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec.34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, the

accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.346 of 2023, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor

1 APCH020012882023

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR DIVISION) CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt V.Silpa, VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor Monday, This Eleventh (11th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.593 of 2023

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Station, Chittoor Rural.

... Complainant

And

1.D. Vijaya, aged about 46 years, W/o Devarajulu, R/o Kattakindavooru Village, Kottalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P

2.Sharath @ Sharat Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Devarajulu, R/o Kattakindavooru Village, Kottalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P

…...Accused /A1 and A2

This case coming on 01.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri. V.Murugan, Advocate for the accused/A1 2 APCH020012882023 and A2, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Station, Chittoor

Rural has laid a charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A)(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020, in

Cr.No 73 of 2021 of Station, Chittoor Rural.

2.In brief the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a)On 28.04.2021 at about 05:30 PM, as per the instructions of the

Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor,

and the Inspecting Officer, the Enforcement Sub-Inspector (LW3) along with staff conducted raids at the Tank Bund of Kattakindavooru Cheruvu, Kottam

Panchayat, Yadamari Mandal. During the raid, one female person was allegedly found holding a white plastic can in front of her. On noticing the uniformed officials, she allegedly left the can at the spot and attempted to escape. On suspicion, LW3 along with staff detained her and enquired about her attempt to flee, upon which she allegedly stated that the can contained ID arrack.

3 APCH020012882023

(b)Thereafter, LW3/D.K. Surya Prakash deputed LW1/B. Lavanaya to the nearby village of Kattakindavooru to secure mediators. After some time,

LW1 returned and reported that V.R.A., V.R.O., and village volunteers were not available and that village elders had refused to act as mediators. LW3 thereafter verified the contents of the can and found a 10-litre capacity white plastic can containing approximately 10 litres of ID liquor (illicitly distilled liquor). Upon further enquiry, the accused allegedly disclosed her identity particulars as stated above. She further allegedly stated that one Sharath, son of Devarajulu, resident of Kattakindavooru Village, had supplied the said ID liquor to her and that she intended to sell it in the surrounding village area.

(c)LW3/D.K. Surya Prakash then drew 180 ml of the ID liquor from the can as a sample for chemical analysis, sealed and labeled both the sample and the remaining property, and arrested the accused after informing her of the grounds of arrest. The contraband was seized under a special report prepared at the spot. Thereafter, LW3 returned to the station at about 08:00 PM and registered Crime No.73/2021 under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 as amended in 2020. The accused was subsequently produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody on 29.04.2021.

4 APCH020012882023

(d)During the course of investigation, the sample was forwarded to the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for analysis. The

Chemical Examiner, vide C.E. No.625/2021 dated 22.05.2021, opined that the sample was “illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.”

(e)It is further stated that the seized property was confiscated to the

State by the Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau,

Ananthapuramu, vide proceedings in Rc.No.1632/2021/C1 dated 12.11.2021, and the property was destroyed on 29.11.2021 in the presence of the Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent and mediators under a panchanama prepared at the spot.

(f)It is also stated that accused A2 was arrested on 21.07.2022 and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. Based on the investigation and collected material evidence, it was concluded that accused A1 was in possession of ID arrack and accused A2 had supplied the said illicit liquor, thereby committing offences punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 as amended in 2020.

Hence, the case.

5 APCH020012882023

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused/A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, the copies of the documents required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused/A1 and A2.

5.The accused/A1 and A2 was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused/A1 and A2, its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused/A1 and A2 was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to them for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for determination is:

6 APCH020012882023

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused/A1 and A2 are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1. Therefore, the accused/A1 and A2 are liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused/A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

12.Perused the record. Out of 04 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 02 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW2/ N. Venkatesh. LW4/ G. Mohan Babu. PW.1 is Police Constable. P.W.2 is SI of Police. Ex.P1 is Special Report. Ex.P2 is F.I.R. Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis

Report. Ex.P4 is destruction Proceedings. M.O.1 is one sample bottle.

7 APCH020012882023

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act , the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW.2 seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused under the cover of Special Report.

14.As per the evidence of PW1/B. Lavanaya, Police Constable deposed that on 28.04.2021 at about 05:30 PM, LW3 conducted raids along with other staff at the Tank Bund of Kattakindavooru Cheruvu, Kottalam Panchayat, Yadamari

Mandal. During the raid, one female person was allegedly found holding a white colour plastic can in front of her and, on noticing the officials, she attempted to flee from the scene. On suspicion, LW3 surrounded and detained her. Upon enquiry, the accused allegedly disclosed her name and address particulars and further confessed that the can contained ID arrack and that she had purchased the arrack from A2.

15.PW1 further deposed that LW3 deputed him to Gundla Kattarmanchi for securing mediators. PW1 stated that he went to the village and found that

Sachivalayam staff were not available in the office and that other village elders 8 APCH020012882023 were not willing to act as mediators. PW1 further stated that LW3 verified the contents of the can and found that it was a 10-litre capacity can containing 10 litres of ID arrack. She further deposed that LW3 drew 180 ml of ID arrack as a sample in a bottle for chemical analysis, arrested the accused (A1) after informing her of the grounds of arrest, and seized the contraband under the cover of a special report marked as Ex.P1. PW1 stated that Ex.P1 is the special report and that he scribed the same at the dictation of LW3.

16.During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that there are nearly 100 residential houses in Kattakindapalle village and that there is only one way to reach the village. She also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

She further admitted that no independent witnesses were secured. She stated that the names of mediators whom he attempted to secure were not mentioned in Ex.P1. She further admitted that no rough sketch was prepared at the scene of offence and that a Sarpanch was available in the village and denied other suggestions.

17.As per the evidence of PW2/D.K. Surya Prakash, SI of Police deposed that on 28.04.2021 at about 05:30 PM, he conducted raids along with other staff 9 APCH020012882023 at the Tank Bund of Kattakindavooru Cheruvu, Kottalam Panchayat, Yadamari

Mandal. During the raid, one female person was allegedly found holding a white colour plastic can in front of her and, on noticing the officials, she attempted to flee from the scene. On suspicion, the raid party surrounded and detained her. Upon enquiry, the accused allegedly disclosed her name and address particulars and further stated that the can contained ID arrack and that she had purchased it from A2.

18.PW2 further deposed that PW1 was deputed to Gundla Kattamanchi for securing mediators. After some time, PW1 returned and reported that

Sachivalayam staff were not available and that village elders were not willing to act as mediators. He further stated that he verified the contents of the can and found it to be a 10-litre capacity can containing 10 litres of ID arrack.

19.PW2 further deposed that he drew 180 ml of the ID arrack as a sample for chemical analysis, sealed the sample, arrested the accused (A1) after informing her of the grounds of arrest, and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P1. He identified Ex.P1 as the special report. He further stated that based on Ex.P1, he registered Crime No.73/2021 for the offence punishable 10 APCH020012882023 under Section 7(B) read with Section 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 as amended in 2020, and forwarded the original FIR to the concerned Court, marked as Ex.P2. He identified Ex.P2 as the FIR. PW2 further deposed that the sample was marked as M.O.1 and was sent for chemical analysis. The chemical analysis report was marked as Ex.P3, and it was opined that the sample was “illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.”

20.PW2 further stated that the seized property was confiscated to the State by the Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuramu, vide Rc.No.163/2021/C1 dated 12.11.2021, and the property was destroyed on 29.11.2021 under Ex.P4. He identified Ex.P4 as the destruction proceedings. He further deposed that the accused was arrested on 21.07.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. He lastly stated that after completion of investigation, LW4 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) read with Section 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 as amended in 2020.

11 APCH020012882023

21.During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that there are nearly 100 residential houses in Kattakindapalle village and that there is only one way to reach the said village. He further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. PW2 also admitted that no independent witnesses were secured at the time of the alleged seizure. He further stated that the names of the mediators whom he attempted to secure were not mentioned in Ex.P1. He also admitted that no rough sketch was prepared at the scene of offence. PW2 further admitted that a Sarpanch was available in the village at the relevant time and denied other suggestions.

22.On the other hand, as to why the Investigating officer did not issue any written summons for securing the mediators. No plausible explanation has been placed, they simply stated that they tried for mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. At least they have to say the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. So which clearly established that they did not try for mediators. The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U.sec.100(4) Cr.P.C when the inhabitants were very much available, it is bounden duty to secure the said persons as mediators. When the independent 12 APCH020012882023 witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the liquor from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings cannot be considered in view of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

23.In a case of our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1)

ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

24.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32 A.P.

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.

25.In the present case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids conducted by PW.2 and his staff, no independent witnesses have been secured 13 APCH020012882023 or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence, the scene of offence is a busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators and no proof of such act was brought on record. The confession

before the police i.e., before P.W.2. is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as

such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence the same cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt. Moreover the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are based upon Ex.P1, on confession of the accused before the police. Hence, the contents of Ex.P1, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will suffer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

30.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused/A1 and A2. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

31.In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act . Accordingly,

14 APCH020012882023 the accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.757 of 2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly in my personal laptop by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. V.Silpa

VI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Defence side: PW.1: B.Lavanaya -NIL- PW.2: D.K. Surya Prakash

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Defence side: Ex.P1: Special Report.-NIL- Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample ID arrack sachet.

Sd/- Smt. V.Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor 15 APCH020012882023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Smt V. Silpa, VI Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise:: Chittoor

Date ofExpl

OffenceReport or ApprehReleaseCommencClose of Sentence anat

Complainension d on ement of Trialof Orderion tof bailTrialof accuseddela y

and

Rem arks (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 28.04.2029.04.202A1:29.0A1:04.022.01.20223.03.202611.05.2026Due 2114.20215.20216to non A2:21.0A2:22.0 pro 7.20217.2021 duct ion of witn esse s

Judgment in Calendar Case No:593 of 2023 on the file of VI Additional Civil

Judge cum Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court :: Chittoor

Complainant: State its rep by: Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Station, Chittoor Rural.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligioCalliResidenceTaluk accusedyearsnng 16 APCH020012882023 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

1.D. Vijaya, aged about 46 years, W/o Devarajulu, R/o Kattakindavooru Village, Kottalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P

2.Sharath @ Sharat Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Devarajulu, R/o Kattakindavooru Village, Kottalam Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P

Offence: U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act .

Finding: Accused/A1 and A2 found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act . Accordingly,

the accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.757 of 2022, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V.Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR DIVISION) CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt V.Silpa, VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor

Friday, This Fifteenth (15th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.457 of 2024

Between:

State represented by Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban.

... Complainant

And

H. Saraswathi, aged about 33 years, W/o Haribabu, residing D.No.3-44, Pillarikuppam village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

...Accused

This case coming on 04.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri.M. Papaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Chitoor urban has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, in Cr.No 30 of 2023 of

Chittoor Urban.

2.In brief the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a) On 25.02.2023 at about 11:30 AM, during raids conducted by the

Enforcement Inspector, Enforcement Sub-Inspector (LW4/K. Babu), Special

Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban, along with staff and mediators (LW1 and LW2), in front of the house bearing D.No.3-44, Eguva Pillarikuppam

Village, Gudipala Mandal, a case was allegedly detected against the accused.

During the raid, one female person was found in possession of a white bag held in her right hand and, on noticing the officials in uniform, allegedly attempted to escape. On suspicion, the raid party surrounded and detained her. Upon enquiry, she allegedly disclosed that the bag contained liquor packets.

(b)Thereafter, LW4/K. Babu verified the contents of the bag in the presence of mediators (LW1 and LW2) and found that it contained 25 tetra packets of “Amrut’s Silver VSOP Brandy,” each of 180 ml capacity, bearing MRP 3 of Rs.70.36/- each, marked “For Sale in Karnataka Only,” and without any AP

State labels or holograms. The liquor was allegedly found to be non-duty paid liquor. During interrogation, the accused allegedly stated that she had purchased the liquor packets from wine shops at Nangali, Karnataka, and was selling the same in her native place for profit. She further disclosed her name and address as H. Saraswathi, aged about 33 years, wife of Haribabu, belonging to Gounder community, residing at D.No.3-44, Pillarikuppam

Village, Eguva Pillarikuppam, Gudipala Mandal.

(c)LW4/K. Babu thereafter collected one tetra packet of “Amrut’s

Silver Cup VSOP Brandy,” each of 180 ml capacity, from the seized property for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and labeled the sample, and also sealed and labeled the remaining case property in the presence of mediators.

LW4 further arrested the accused after informing her of the grounds of arrest and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of a panchanama prepared at the spot.

(d)Subsequently, LW4/K. Babu returned to the station along with the accused and the seized property and registered Crime No.30/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8(b)(i) of the A.P.

4

Prohibition Act, 1995. The accused was thereafter produced before the Hon’ble

Court on 25.02.2023 for judicial custody with proper escort.

(e)Thereafter, LW4/K. Babu forwarded the sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Chittoor, through the Hon’ble Court for analysis. The Chemical

Examiner, vide C.E. No.301/2023 dated 10.04.2023, opined that the sample bearing S.No.2308 was “Indian Made Liquor.”

(f)The seized property was subsequently confiscated to the State by the Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau & Confiscating

Authority, Ananthapuramu, vide proceedings in Rc.No.2021/2021/C1 dated 26.05.2023, and the confiscated property was destroyed on 13.10.2023. Copies of the confiscation order and destruction panchanama were appended to the record.

(g)Thus, it is alleged that the accused was found in possession and sale of non-duty paid liquor without any valid bills or permits and is thereby liable for punishment under Section 7 read with Section 8(b)(i) of the A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995.

Hence, the case.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

5

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents required

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.The Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused, its contents were explained to her in Telugu language for which she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to her for which she denied the same and reported no defense evidence on her behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

6

10. POINT :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 and MO.1. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 

12.Perused the record. Out of 05 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 03 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW1/V. Lakshminarayana. LW5/K. Pavan. PW.1 is mediator. P.W.2 is Sub-

Inspector of Police. PW3 is Head Constable. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on panchanama dated 25.03.2023. Ex.P2 is Panchanama. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is

Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P5 is Destruction Proceedings. M.O.1 is one sample bottle.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license 7 and PW.2 seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused under the cover of Special Report.

14.PW1 did not support the case of prosecution.

15.As per the evidence of PW2/K. Babu, SI of Police deposed that on 25.02.2023 at about 11:30 AM, as per the instructions of the Assistant

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, he conducted raids along with other staff and mediators in front of the house bearing D.No.3-44, Eguva

Pillarikuppam Hamlet, Kothavekatapuram Panchayat, GD Nellore Mandal.

During the raid, one female person was allegedly found in possession of a white plastic bag and, on noticing the officials, attempted to escape from the scene by leaving the bag behind. On suspicion, the raid party surrounded and detained her. Upon enquiry, she allegedly disclosed her name and address particulars and confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles.

16.PW2 further deposed that he verified the property in the presence of

PW1 and LW1 and found that the white colour bag contained 25 tetra packets of liquor. He further stated that he collected one bottle of 180 ml capacity as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused in the presence of PW1 8 and LW1. He further stated that the contraband was seized under the cover of a panchanama marked as Ex.P2, and identified Ex.P2 as the panchanama.

17.PW2 further deposed that, based on Ex.P2, he registered Crime

No.30/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8(b)

(i) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and forwarded the original FIR to the concerned Court, which was marked as Ex.P3. He identified Ex.P3 as the original FIR. PW2 further stated that the samples were sent for chemical analysis and the sample was marked as M.O.1. He further deposed that he received the chemical analysis report dated 10.04.2023 from the Chemical

Examiner, marked as Ex.P4, wherein it was opined that the sample was “Indian

Made Liquor.”

18.PW2 further stated that the seized property was confiscated to the State by the Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Ananthapuramu, vide proceedings in

Rc.No.2021/2021/C1 dated 26.05.2023, and that the confiscated property was

destroyed on 13.10.2023. The destruction proceedings were marked as Ex.P5, and PW2 identified Ex.P5 as the destruction proceedings. He further deposed that, after completion of investigation, LW5 filed the charge sheet against the 9 accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8(b)(i) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

19.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW2 admitted that the specific shop from where the accused allegedly purchased the liquor was not mentioned, except referring to Nangili in Ex.P2. He further admitted that the owner of the said shop was not cited as a witness in the case.

PW2 also admitted that no independent witnesses were examined or cited in the present case. He further admitted that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared and that no photographs or videos were filed before the

Court and denied other suggestions.

20.As per the evidence of PW3/B. Sanka Naik, Head Constable deposed that on 25.02.2023 at about 11:30 AM, as per the instructions of the Assistant

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, PW2 conducted raids along with other staff and mediators in front of the house bearing D.No.3-44, Eguva

Pillarikuppam Hamlet, Kothavekatapuram Panchayat, GD Nellore Mandal.

During the raid, one female person was allegedly found in possession of a white plastic bag and, on noticing the officials, attempted to escape from the scene by leaving the bag behind. On suspicion, the raid party surrounded and 10 detained her. Upon enquiry, she allegedly disclosed her name and address particulars and confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles.

21.PW3 further deposed that PW2 verified the property in the presence of

PW1 and LW1 and found that the white colour bag contained 25 tetra packets of liquor. He further stated that PW2 collected one bottle of 180 ml capacity as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused in the presence of PW1 and LW1 and seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P2.

22.During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW3 admitted that the specific shop from where the accused allegedly purchased the liquor was not mentioned, except referring to Nangili in Ex.P2. He further admitted that the owner of the said shop was not cited as a witness in the case.

PW3 also admitted that no independent witnesses were examined or cited in the present case. He further admitted that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared and that no photographs or videos were filed before the

Court and denied other suggestions.

23.The prosecution case relates to alleged seizure of 25 tetra packets of

Indian Made Liquor from the possession of the accused on 25.02.2023 in front 11 of her house. The case is sought to be proved through the evidence of PW1 to

PW3, who are stated to be mediators and official witnesses to the raid and seizure proceedings.

24.PW2, who is the main investigating officer, deposed that during the raid conducted along with staff and mediators, the accused was found in possession of a white plastic bag containing 25 tetra packets of liquor. He further stated that the accused attempted to flee and was apprehended on suspicion, and that she allegedly confessed to possessing the contraband. PW2 claimed that a sample was drawn, the remaining contraband was seized under Ex.P2 panchanama, and the accused was arrested on the spot. He also relied upon the chemical analysis report (Ex.P4) to establish that the seized substance was

Indian Made Liquor.

25.PW1, who were projected as mediator to the seizure proceedings, did not support the prosecution version in a material manner. Though they are shown as witnesses to the panchanama proceedings, both witnesses did not offer independent or convincing corroboration of the alleged recovery. Their evidence, read along with admissions during cross-examination, shows that the prosecution version is not supported by independent witnesses and the 12 alleged seizure is not free from doubt. The absence of reliable independent corroboration from mediators affects the credibility of the prosecution case.

26.A careful appreciation of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 further reveals material deficiencies in the investigation. It is admitted that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared. No photographs or videographic evidence was collected or produced before the Court. The specific shop from where the accused allegedly procured the liquor was not properly established, except a vague reference to Nangili. The alleged vendor was not examined as a witness.

These omissions create a gap in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

27.It is also significant that the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses from the locality, though the incident allegedly occurred in front of the accused’s house in a residential area. The failure to secure or examine neutral witnesses, despite their availability, weakens the prosecution version. Further, the alleged confession of the accused before police officers, as stated by PW2, is inadmissible in law except to the limited extent permitted under the Evidence Act, and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

13

28.It is a settled principle of criminal law that conviction cannot rest on doubtful or uncorroborated testimony, especially when independent witnesses to seizure proceedings do not support the prosecution case and material investigative lapses are evident. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

29.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 does not inspire confidence due to lack of independent corroboration, material omissions in investigation, and absence of supporting documentary or electronic evidence such as photographs or sketch maps. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

30.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14

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

punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act . Accordingly, the accused is

acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment as per Sec.437-

A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.194 of 2024, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly in my personal laptop by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Defence side: PW.1: H. Saravana -NIL- PW.2: K. Babu PW3: B. Sanka Naik

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Defence side: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on panchanama dated 25.03.2023 -NIL- Ex.P2 : Panchanama Ex.P3 : First Information Report. Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P5: Destruction Proceedings.

.MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample ID arrack liqour.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor 15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Smt V. Silpa, VI Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise:: Chittoor

Date ofExpla nation OffenceReport or AppreheReleased CommenClose of Sentence of Complainnsion of on bailcement of Trialof Order delay taccusedTrial

and

Remar ks (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 25.02.2023 25.02.20225.02.20224.02.2023 07.10.20214.10.2025 15.05.202Due to non 3356 produ ction of witnes ses

Judgment in Calendar Case No:457 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional Civil

Judge cum Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court :: Chittoor

Complainant: State its rep by: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligion CalliResidenceTaluk accusedyearsng (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

H. Saraswathi, aged about 33 years, W/o Haribabu, residing D.No.3-44, Pillarikuppam village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

Offence: U/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

16

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act . Accordingly, the accused is

acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment as per Sec.437-

A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in CPR No.194 of 2024, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor

1

APCH020004662020

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR DIVISION) CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Smt V.Silpa, VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor Monday, This Eleventh (11th ) day of May, 2026

C.C. No.302 of 2020

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor Taluk Police Station.

... Complainant

And

1.D. Ramesh, aged about 32 years, S/o A. Devarajulu, D.No.1-149, Thummindapalyam Village, Chittoor Rural Mandal and District, A.P.

2.D. Suresh, aged about 31 years, S/o A. Devarajulu, D.No.1-149, Thummindapalyam Village, Chittoor Rural Mandal and District, A.P.

…...Accused/A & A2

This case coming on 07.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Smt.E. Renuka/A. Murali Mohan, Advocate for the accused/A1 & A2, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2

APCH020004662020

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor Taluk Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused/A1 & A2 for the offence under Section 34(e) of

A.P. Excise Act and Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995, in Cr.No 10 of 2020 of Chittoor Taluk.

2.In brief the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a)On 05.02.2020 at about 1:00 PM, in the agricultural fields belonging to Ramesh and Suresh situated at Thummindapalyam Village and Post, Chittoor

Rural Mandal, it was found that the accused namely D. Ramesh, S/o Devarajulu, and D. Suresh, S/o Devarajulu, both residents of Thummindapalyam Village and

Post, Chittoor Rural Mandal, had allegedly stored fermenting jaggery wash (F.J.

wash) in seven barrels for the purpose of preparation of illicitly distilled (ID) arrack.

(b)During the raid, approximately 1400 litres of F.J. wash stored in the barrels was destroyed under the cover of police proceedings. At the time of the raid, both accused were absconding. The matter was reported at the Police Station on the same day at about 2:30 PM. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.10/2020 was registered on 05.02.2020 at about 11:30 AM for the offences punishable under 3

APCH020004662020

Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 7(a) read with Section 8(e) of the

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

( c )Subsequently, on 10.02.2020, notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

were served upon A-1 D. Ramesh and A-2 D. Suresh with clear instructions to appear before the Hon’ble Court or Police whenever required for the purpose of answering the charges. Thus, the accused A-1 D. Ramesh and A-2 D. Suresh are liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offences punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 7(a) read with Section 8(e) of the A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995.

Hence, the case.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act against the accused/A1 & A2.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 & A2, the copies of the documents required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused/A1 & A2.

5.The accused/A1 & A2 was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act 4

APCH020004662020 against the accused/A1 & A2, its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused/A1 & A2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to them for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A1

& A2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

Therefore, the accused/A1 & A2 are liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused/A1 & A2 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent 5

APCH020004662020 witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused/A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 

12.Perused the record. Out of 04 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 02 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW1/V. Siva Kumar. LW4/K. Nagasoujanya. PW.1 is Police constable. P.W.2 is

Asst.SI of Police. Ex.P1 is Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 is F.I.R.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW.2 seized ID arrack from the possession of the accused under the cover of Police Proceedings.

14.As per the evidence of PW1/D. Raj Kumar, Police constable deposed that on 05.02.2020 at about 1:00 PM, LW-3 received credible information regarding illegal possession and preparation of illicitly distilled (ID) arrack. Upon receipt of the said information, PW1 along with LW-3 proceeded to the scene of offence situated in the agricultural fields belonging to accused A-1 and A-2 at

Thummindapalyam Village and Post, Chittoor Mandal.

6

APCH020004662020

15.PW1 further stated that LW-3 inspected the scene of offence and found fermenting jaggery wash (F.J. wash) stored at the spot. He further deposed that upon verification of the scene, LW-3 found seven barrels containing F.J. wash, amounting to approximately 1400 litres. He further stated that LW-3 collected 180 ml of F.J. wash as a sample for chemical analysis, sealed and labelled the same, and thereafter destroyed the remaining wash under the cover of police proceedings.

16.During the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that he had not signed on the police proceedings. He further stated that he did not know whether any member of the public had lodged any report against A-1 and A-2 alleging that they were preparing ID arrack. He also stated that he did not know whether LW-3 had mentioned the boundaries of the land and the names of adjacent landowners in the police proceedings. He admitted that in his presence LW-3 did not measure or weigh the quantity of F.J. wash allegedly found at the scene, no independent witnesses were examined at the scene of offence and that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared and denied other suggestions.

17.As per the evidence of PW2/C. Anjaneyulu, Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 05.02.2020 at about 1:00 PM, he received credible information 7

APCH020004662020 regarding illegal possession and preparation of illicitly distilled (ID) arrack. Upon receipt of the said information, PW2 along with police staff proceeded to the scene of offence situated in the agricultural fields belonging to accused A-1 and A-2 at

Thummindapalyam Village and Post, Chittoor Mandal. He further stated that he inspected the scene of offence and found fermenting jaggery wash (F.J. wash) stored at the spot.

18.PW2 further deposed that upon verification of the scene, he found seven barrels containing F.J. wash amounting to approximately 1400 litres. Thereafter, the F.J. wash was destroyed under the cover of police proceedings marked as

Ex.P1. He further stated that based on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime

No.10/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 7(a) read with Section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and forwarded the original FIR to the concerned Court, which was marked as Ex.P2.

19.PW2 also deposed that on 10.02.2020, he issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to accused A-1 and A-2 with instructions to appear before the Court whenever their presence was required. He further stated that after completion of investigation, LW-4 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences 8

APCH020004662020 punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 7(a) read with

Section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

20.During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that no member of the general public had given any report against A-1 and A-2 alleging that they were preparing

ID arrack. He further admitted that he did not know whether the boundaries of the land and the names of adjacent landowners were mentioned in Ex.P1. He admitted that he did not weigh or measure the quantity of F.J. wash allegedly found at the scene of offence. He further admitted that no independent witnesses were examined at the scene of offence and that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared and denied other suggestions.

21.On the other hand, as to why the Investigating officer did not issue any written summons for securing the mediators. No plausible explanation has been placed, they simply stated that they tried for mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. At least they have to say the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. So which clearly established that they did not try for mediators.

The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U.sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C when the inhabitants were very much available, it is bounden duty to secure 9

APCH020004662020 the said persons as mediators. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the liquor from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings cannot be considered in view of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

22.In a case of our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

23.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32 A.P.

Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.

24.In the present case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids conducted by PW.2 and his staff, no independent witnesses have been secured or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators were not reflected anywhere in 10

APCH020004662020 the record to believe their version. As per the evidence, the scene of offence is at fields of accused/A1 and A2 i.e., Thummindapalyam Village and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators and no proof of such act was brought on record. The confession before the police i.e., before P.W.2. is hit by Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act as such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence the same cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt. Moreover the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are based upon Ex.P1, on confession of the accused before the police. Hence, the contents of Ex.P1, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will suffer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

25.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused/A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused/A1 & A2. As such, the accused/A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

26.In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the

accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of 11

APCH020004662020 the accused/A1 & A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly in my personal laptop by the Stenographer

Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Defence side:

PW.1: D. Raj Kumar -NIL-

PW.2: C. Anjaneyulu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Defence side:

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings.-NIL-

Ex.P2 : First Information Report.

12

APCH020004662020

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample ID arrack sachet.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor 13

APCH020004662020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Smt V. Silpa, VI Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class for Excise:: Chittoor

Date ofExpl OffenceReport or AppreheReleaseCommencClose of Sentence anati Complaintnsion of d on bailement of Trialof Orderon of accusedTrialdela y

and

Rem arks (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 05.02.205.02.20205.02.2041-A 01.04.20208.04.202611.05.2026Due 020020Cr.P.C 6to Noticenon prod uctio n of witn esse s

Judgment in Calendar Case No:302 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional Civil

Judge cum Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court :: Chittoor

Complainant: State its rep by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor Taluk Police Station.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligionCalliResidenceTaluk accusedyearsng (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

1.D. Ramesh, aged about 32 years, S/o A. Devarajulu, D.No.1-149, Thummindapalyam Village, Chittoor Rural Mandal and District, A.P.

14

APCH020004662020

2.D. Suresh, aged about 31 years, S/o A. Devarajulu, D.No.1-149, Thummindapalyam Village, Chittoor Rural Mandal and District, A.P.

Offence: U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act .

Finding: Accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Accordingly,

the accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 & A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Smt. V. Silpa

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) -Cum-Spl.JMFC, Chittoor