Sri . Vijay Goutam Dabbiru

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present: D. Vijay Goutam, Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota.

Friday, this the 18th day of August, 2017.

C.C.No. 276 of 2015.

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jami Police Station. ...Complainant.

And

1.Midatana Simhadri, S/o. Late Simhachalam, age 55 years, R/o. Venkatarajupalem, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2.Chukka Suri Babu, S/o. Late Mutyalu, age 63 years, Venkatarajupalem, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3.Gogada Chitti, S/o. Late Sanyasulu, age 55 years, Venkatarajupalem, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4.Goddu Nagaraju, S/o. Appalaswami, age 40 years, Venkatarajupalem, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

5.Buttala Yerni Babu, S/o. Yerni Babu, age 45 years, Venkatarajupalem, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

6.Sambeerapu Krishna(died),

S/o. Late Appalaswami. ...Accused No.1 to 6.

(Accused No. 6 died on 21.04.2017 during the pendency of this Calendar Case and the case against Accused No. 6 is abated)

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 09.08.2017 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri V. Ramana, learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jami filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 332, 384 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for brevity) in Crime No.28/2015 of

Jami Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2015 at about 10.30

P.M., Pydi Rajulu, Head Constable of Jami Police Station received a phone call at the police station that recording dance is going on at

Venkatarajupalem village. After receipt of the said information, he handed over the G.D. charge to I. Suresh, Police Constable and went to

Venkatarajupalem village. After Pydi Rajulu reached Nageswara Swami

Temple Vari thrashing floor, he found obscene dances being performed by lady dancer. When he went there and requested the dancers to stop dancing, the committee members of Theerdham namely

Siripurapu Ramamurthy, Sarpanch, Siripurapu Kanna, Gadi Appa Rao,

S/o.Suryanarayana,BadireddiSuryanarayana,Badireddi

Sanyasinaidu, Chokka Venkatrao, S/o. Satyam, Siripurapu Satyam

Master, Gopisetti Chandramma, Kolla Venkata Rao pounced upon him, restrained him. In the meantime, some villagers attacked him, beat hm severly with an intention to kill him, had torn his khaki shirt, extracted (sic. Extorted) his purse, motorcycle key, cash, ID Card, ATM

Card from the purse and tried to kill him. In the meantime, Middi

Ramesh, S/o. Varahalu of Beemasingi village, Chinni of Jami village,

Allada Yernibabu of Dondaparthy and some others of Annamrajupeta village rescued him and took him away in an auto. It is further alleged that since the villagers beat the informant severly, he fell unconscious.

In the morning he came to Jami Police Station and a lodged a report.

3.Basing on the report, a case was registered in Crime No. 28/2015 for offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 341, 332, 384, 294 r/w. 34 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that

Siripurapu Ramamurthy, Sarpanch and other members are not involved in the crime. It was further revealed that the provisions of sections 294 and 307 of I.P.C. are not attracted. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 332, 384 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

4.This court took cognisance of the offence under section 190(1)(b)

Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 332, 384 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as per provisions of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for brevity).

5.The accused No.1 to 6 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

The accused persons denied the accusations against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 332, 384 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the accused No. 1 to 6.

6.In support of the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.15 have been got marked.

7.During the pendency of this case, the accused No.6, Sambeerapu

Krishna, died on 21.04.2017 and the case against him was abated.

After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them were put to them.

The accused No.1 to 5 denied the same. However, the accused No. 1 to 5 did not let in any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the case against accused

No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 332, 384 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.Pydi Rajulu, Head Constable, who set the law in motion by lodging Ex.P.1 report was examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that on 18.02.2015, upon receipt of information about recording dances, he went to Venkatarajupalem in uniform. After reaching Nandeeswara

Swamy Temple near thrasing floors, he found four women dancing.

When he called the elders of the Committee and informed them that performing of recording dance is an offence, 20 persons including all the accused persons came to him and surrounded him, tried to kill him, took away his purse, ATM Card, ID Card and cash of Rs.12,000/- and also motorcycle keys. P.W.1 stated that all the accused beat him on his chest and head with hands. P.W.1 further deposed that Suresh,

Allada Yernibabu rescued him and took him to Bheemasingi in an auto.

He had fainted there and lodged report with the police station in the morning.

11.During the course of his cross-examination by the learned

Counsel for the accused, P.W.1 stated that the police station is at a distance of 6 to 7 kilometres from the scene of offence. P.W.1 futher stated that he came to Bheemasingi in the auto and stayed there in a shed the whole night due to fear. However P.W.1 stated that the distance between Bheemasingi junction and Jami Police Station is 3 kilometres.

12.P.W.2, Maddi Ramesh, is an auto driver. P.W.2 stated that he dropped P.W.1 at Jami Police Station with the assistance of two persons and that P.W.1 was not having shirt on his body. P.W.2 stated that he did not witness the offence and he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

13.M. Santosh Kumar, P.W.3, deposed that on 18.02.2015 between 10:00 P.M. and 10:30 P.M., some persons attacked P.W.1, that P.W.1's shirt was torn. P.W.3 stated that he took P.W.1 to Jami Police Station with the assistance of P.W.2. However P.W.3 deposed that he could not identify any person as it was dark.

14.P.W.4 is Attada Yernibabu. He deposed that he went to

Venkatarajupalem to watch cultural programmes during Sivaratri festivities. P.W.4 deposed that he saw P.W.1 running away and that

P.W.1's shirt was torn. P.W.4 stated that he did not see the persons who allegedly beat P.W.1. P.W.4 did not identify the accused persons.

15.Chalamuri Suryanarayana, Chukka Bangarayya, Gogada Suri

Appa Rao, Bandhakam Srinu, Kanikarla Yernibabu, Dukka Ramana respectively were examined as P.W.s 5 to 10. Even though all of them are residents of Venkatrajupalem, none of them supported the case of the prosecution. The statements of P.W.s 5 to 10 recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. are marked respectively as Ex.P.4 to

Ex.P.9

16.P.W.11 and P.W.12 respectively are Pudi Venkata Rao and Choppa

Ramakrishna, who according to the prosecution, acted as mediators at the time of drafting of Scene Observation Report. Both of them stated that they did not observe any scene of offence and that their signatures were obtained at M.P.D.O.Office. The signatures of P.W.s 11 and 12 on Ex.P.15 Scene Observation Report were marked respectively as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11.

17.Dr.P.V.K.Sharma, Civil Assistant Surgeon, was examined as

P.W.13. P.W.13 who issued Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate of P.W.1 was of the opinion that the injury received by P.W.1 is simple in nature and might have been caused due to assault by a blunt object. P.W.13 stated that the injury to P.W.1 might as well be caused when a person falls on a blunt object.

18.P.W.14 is I.Suresh Kumar, Police Constable. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 handed over G.D.Charge on 18.02.2015 to P.W.14

before proceeding to Venkatrajupalem vilage to curb obscene dances.

During the course of his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, P.W.14 stated that P.W.1 did not inform him about the incident on 18.02.2015 during night hours.

19.M. Prasanth Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, was examined as

P.W.15. He deposed that the scene of offence is at a distance of 5 kilometres from Jami Police Station. P.W.15 deposed about registration of Ex.P.13 F.I.R, Ex.P.14 Rough Sketch and Ex.P.15 Scene Observation

Report.

20.During the course of his cross-examination by the learned

Counsel for the accused, P.W.15 stated that P.W.1 did not have bleeding injury by the time he lodged Ex.P.1 report.

21.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that he was attacked by the accused

No.1 to 6 and other persons on 18.02.2015, that the accused persons wrongfully restrained him and caused simple injury to him and extorted money and ATM Card from him. She further submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that many people bet P.W.1 further corroborates the evidene of P.W.1. She submitted that Ex.P.12 Wound

Certificate of P.W.1 clearly shows that he was injuried in the incident.

She contended that the accused No.1 to 5 are liable to be convicted for the offences they were tried for.

22.The learned Counsel for the accused No.1 to 5, on other hand, submitted that the case of prosecution suffers from severe infirmities.

He submitted that P.W.1 deposed that 20 persons attacked him while only 6 accused persons are brought up for trial. The learned Counsel

for the accused would submit that the accused persons are not named

in the Ex.P.1 report lodged on 19.02.2015 and atleast their physical description was not given in Ex.P.1 report. He submitted that the accused persons 1 to 5 are falsely implicated along with the deceased accused No.6 for reasons best known to the prosecution.

23.The learned Counsel for the accused No.1 to 5 submitted that there are glaring infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that while P.W.1 deposed that he took shelter in a shed in Bheemasingi during the night of 18.02.2015, P.W.s 2 to 4 have deposed that they had dropped

P.W.1 in an auto at Jami Police Station after the alleged occurence. The learned Counsel submitted that these contradictions cast serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution. He submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and no Test

Identification Parade was conducted to connect the accused No.1 to 5 with the alleged offence.

24.A perusal of the evidence would show that P.W.1, immediately after he was rescued by P.W.s 3 and 4, took shelter in a shed at

Bheemasinghi vllage. However, P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 have deposed that they had dropped P.W.1 at Jami Police Station after the incident.

25.The incident is alleged to have happened on 18.02.2015 at 10:45

P.M. However, Ex.P.1 report was lodged on 19.02.2015. P.W.1 sought to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. by stating that after he was rescued in P.W.2's auto by P.W.3 and P.W.4, he took shelter in a shed in

Bheemasinghi the whole night, fearing for his life. According to P.W.1,

Jami is situated only at a distance of 3 kilometres from Bheemsinghi.

When P.W.1 could have proceeded to Bheemsinghi in an auto, he could have as well have gone to Jami, where hospitals and police station are situated, in the same auto. P.W.15 stated that the scene of offence is situated at a distance of only 5 k.m. from Jami Police Station. P.W.1 being a Head Constable himself would have taken recourse to law immediately and also sought medical aid. P.W.1 did not depose that the mob chased him after he was rescued by P.W.s 2 to 4. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence in this aspect.

26.Further, P.W.3 only deposed that some people attacked P.W.1 and stated he could not identify any one as it was dark at that hour. The evidence of P.W.3 does not connect the accused persons with the offence alleged against them.

27.P.W.4 also stated that he did not see the persons who had bet

P.W.1. P.W.4 could not identify the accused persons in the dock. The evidence of P.W.4 does not help the case of the prosecution in connecting the accused persons with the offence.

28.According to Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate, P.W.1 received a simple injury on his right loin. P.W.11 who issued Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate deposed that the injury might have been caused with a blunt object.

P.W.1 deposed that 20 persons including the accused persons bet him with their hands on his head and chest. However, Ex.P.12 does not speak of any injuries on the head or chest of P.W.1 and P.W.1 himself did not depose about the use of blunt object by any of the accused persons.

29.The guilt of the accused persons is not established beyond all reasonable doubt in view of the above mentioned contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and that of P.W.s 2 to 4 and Ex.P.12.

The prosecution also did not produce the shirt of P.W.1 that was allegedly torn by the accused persons. The accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal; the case against accused No.6 having already abated.

30.In the result, the accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 323, 341,332, 384 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. Accused No. 1 to 5 shall each execute a personal bond for

Rs.5,000/- for their appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court as and when directed and the same will be in force for period of 6 months. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer-Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of August, 2017.

Sd/- D. Vijay Goutam

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Pydi Rajulu.NONE. P.W.2: Maddi Ramesh. P.W.3: M. Santosh Kumar. P.W.4: Attada Yernibabu. P.W.5: Chalumuri Suryanarayana. P.W.6: Chukka Bangarayya. P.W.7: Gogada Suri Appa Rao. P.W.8: Bandhakam Srinu. P.W.9: Kanikarla Yernibabu. P.W.10: Dukka Ramana. P.W.11: Pudi Venkata Rao. P.W.12: Choppa Ramakrishna. P.W.13: Dr.P.V.K.Sharma. P.W.14: I. Suresh Kumar. P.W.15: M. Prasanth Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Report lodged by P.W.1. NIL. Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.4 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.5 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.5: Statement of P.W.6 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.6: Statement of P.W.7 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.7: Statement of P.W.8 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.8: Statement of P.W.9 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.9: Statement of P.W.10 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.10: Signature of P.W.11 on Scene Observation Report. Ex.P.11: Signature of P.W.12 on Scene Observation Report. Ex.P.12: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.13: First Information Report. Ex.P.14: Rough Sketch. Ex.P.15: Scene Observation Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

No material object are produced on either side.

Sd/- D. Vijay Goutam

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present: D.Vijay Goutam,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

Friday, this the 11th day of August, 2017

C.C.No.61 of 2017. Between State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Srungavarapukota Police Station. ... Complainant.

And

Kotaparthi Santhoshi, W/o.Krishna. 35 years, Resident of Revallapalem Village, S.Kota mandal, Viziangaram District..… Accused.

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 10.08.2017 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri V. Eswara Rao, learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, S. Kota filed a charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968 and section 201 I.P.C. in Crime No.116/2016 of S.Kota Police

Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2016 at 20.00 hours, on receiving credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota and his staff rushed to Revallapalem Village, S.Kota Mandal and found that the accused was selling liquor. A searched was made and (1)Gold

Riband Whisky 11 bottles(180ml) (2) Officers Choice (180ml) -07 bottles were found and seized. An Occurence Report was drafted.

3.Based on the Occurrence Report, a case was registered in crime

No.116/2016 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. During the course of investigation, a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served on the accused.The sample bottles were sent to the Prohibition and Excise

Department, Visakhapatnam. The Chemical Examiner opined that the samples are Indian Liquor. After receipt of analysis report the charge sheet is filed.

4.This court took cognisance of the offence under section 190(1)(b)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as per provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation against her and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The charge was read over and explained to the accused.

6.In support of the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.Os. 1 and 2 sample bottles have been got marked.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidence against him were put to him.

The accused denied the same. However, the accused did not let in any evidence in his defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

POINT:-

10.P.W.1, I.Santoshi, WPC, deposed that on 02.05.2016 at about 8.00 pm on receiving credible information about of illegal sale of liquor,she along with B.Sagar Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, and Ramu Murthy,

Probationary Sub-Inspector rushed to Chicken shop situated in

Revvallapalem village and found a person selling liquor infront of her shop by storing the bottles in a bag and found that the bag contained 11 Gold Riband 180 ml bottles, 07 Officers Choice 180ml bottles. P.W.1 deposed that the accused stated that she purchased them from wine shop locally and confessed that she is selling liquor bottles for higher price. Samples were collected for the purpose of chemical analysis.

P.W.1 further stated that the labels were torn all the bottles. An occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence.

11. P.W.2, B.Sagar Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 02.05.2016 at about 20.00 hours on receiving credible information he along with P.W.1, E.Ramurthy, Probationary Sub-Inspector, went to house of the accused of in Ravallapalem village . The accused was selling liquor in front of her shop, the liquor bottles were stored in gunny bag. P.W.2 opened the gunny bag and found 11 Gold Riband 180 ml bottles, 07 Officers choice 180ml bottles in the gunny bag. The accused stated that she has no license to sell liquor.

12.P.W.2 further deposed that basing on Ex.P.1 Occurrence Report, he registered Ex.P.2 F.I.R. Crime No.116/2016 under section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act and 201 Indian Penal Code. He sent M.O.s 1 and 2 to the

Prohibition and Excise Department, Visakhapatnam. The Chemical

Examiner opined that the samples are Indian Liquor. After receipt of

Ex.P.3 analysis report, Sk.Abdul Maroof, Sub-inspector of poloice filed the charge sheet.

13. During the course of cross-examinaiton of P.W.1 by the learned

Counsel for the accused, P.W.1 admitted that I do not know whether

Two milk vending shops also situated opposite shop of accused.

Political representatives also stay in the village. No notice in writing was given to any person to act as mediator.

14.During the course of cross-examinaiton of P.W.2 by the learned

Counsel for the accused, P.W.2 stated that no G.D entry was made in respect of receipt of information and their proceeding to Revallapalem village. P.W.2 further admitted that most of the villagers are present in the village and also several public representatives residing

Revallapalem village. No notices in writing was issued to any person to act as mediator. P.W.2 stated that the quantity of sample bottle was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 occurrence report.

15. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 that the accused was found selling liquor illegally and that she was found in possession of (1)Gold Riband Whisky 11 bottles(180ml) (2) Officers Choice (180ml) -07 bottles without any license to sell liquor is cogent and reliable. She also submitted that

Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis Report that M.O.s 1 and 2 contain Indian

Liquor further supports the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of the bottles. The accused is liable to be convicted for the offence he was tried for.

16. The learned Counsel for the accused submit that as provided under section 100(4) Cr.P.C., P.Ws. 1 and 2 ought to have taken to the place of occurrence two independent witnesses and the failure to follow the said provision is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that the alleged recovery of the liquor bottles and drafting of Ex.P.1 Occurrence Report is hit by sections 25 and 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act and that P.W.1 did not prepare any rough sketch of the scene of offence, casts serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested at the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date and time.

17. The learned Counsel also submitted that there is delay in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner and Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis report cannot be relied upon by this Court.

18.Admittedly the scene of offence is a busy locality. The evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they could not secure independent mediators does not inspire confidence as no notice in writing to the mediators, as contemplated under section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is produced before this

Court.

19.The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Babu Saheb @

Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P.) was pleased to hold that:

“The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2.”(paragraph 27)

20.The alleged recovery of the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused and his statement that he is selling liquor is hit by sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the occurrence report,

Ex.P.1 is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C.

21.The seizure of the sample bottles, M.O.s 1 and 2 was allegedly made on 02.05.2016. However, they were received by the Chemical

Examiner of Prohibition and Excise only on 06.08.2016. The prosecution has not explained the reason for the delay in sending

M.O.s 1and 2 to the Chemical Examiner. The prosecuition only produced M.Os.1 and 2 before this Court, the other bottles seized from the accused are not produced before this Court.

22.Further all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused are not sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.), was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all bottles seized from the accused contain

Indian Liquor. In this case all the bottles are not sent to the Chemical

Examiner.

23. Hence it is manifest that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. M.O.s 1 and 2 (sample bottles) shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- under section 437-A Cr.P.C. for her appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court as and when directed and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of August, 2017..

Sd/- D.Vijay Goutam

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

P.W.1: I.Santhoshi, WPC. - None - P.W.2: B.Sagar Babu, Sub-Inspector. Documents Marked:

For Prosectuion:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report. Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Examiner Report.

For Defence : NIL.

Material Objects:

M.O.1 is sample bottle of Gold Riband Whisky. M.O.2 is sample bottle of Officers Choice.

Sd/-D.Vijay Goutam

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.