Y Prema Latha, M.sc., L.l.m.,

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Smt Y.Premalatha, II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.NO.18/2018

Between:

The State: Sub- Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru P.S

…….. Complainant

Vs.

1. Bolimera Tirupathaiah, S/o Late Raja Rao, 55 years, Mala by caste, Inturu village, Amarthaluru Mandal.

2. Nadendla Raju, S/o Late nageswara Rao, 26 years, Mala by caste, Inturu Village, Amarthaluru mandal. ……… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri G.Ravi Raju, advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru PS filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows, On 12-11-2017 at about 4.30 p.m, on information PW3 along with PW1, Lws 2 to 4 and PW2 and

LW6 proceeded to Lock center, Inturu village and found A1 and A2 were selling liquor bottles by sitting on the Dhimma by the side of the main road, lock center, Inturu village. Then, PW3 seized 70 bottles of Mc dowells No.1 celebration Luxury XXX Rum 180 m.l batch No. of 050/21-10-17(for 18 bottles) 051/21-10-17( for 52 bottels ) total 70 bottles along with the plastic bag from the possession of the both of the accused and also cash of Rs.400/- got by selling the liquor bottles from the possession of A1 and arrested the accused at 5.45 p.m and explained the grounds of their arrest as they violated the provisions of Excise Act under a cover of mediatornama duly attested by PW2 and LW6- Kambam Naveen Kumar. The accused were brought to police station at 6.30 p.m along with the seized property and registered the above mediatornama as Cr.No.83/2017 and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation he recorded the statements of

Pw1 and Lws 2 to 4 and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough 2 sketch of the same. Later the accused were sent for remand to the Hon’ble court. PW3 also sent the seized two sample bottles to Chemical examiner,

Guntur for analysis and he received report from the same vide RC

No.2510/2017, dt.23-11-2017 and opined that it is Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused they were furnished with copies under Sec.207

Cr.P.C and they were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and they denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1 to MO.4 . After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused were read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the accused are carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill for illegal sale and make profit of the same in order to eakeout their livelihood as contended by the prosecution and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

7.This is a case as per the prosecution that Accused are selling the liquor bottles without having any valid license, in order to sell the same illegally for profit and with contraband at lock centre, Inturu Village and on interrogation of PW3 accused confessed the offence and basing on the said confession before the PW2 and Ex.P1 mediator report has been drafted and effected the arrest of accused and seized the contraband from the possession of accused and PW3 registered a case investigated into the matter and thereafter, as there is involvement accused in this crime, police laid charge sheet against the accused.

3

8.The prosecution examined D.Nancharaiah, HC, Amarthaluru PS, he deposed that on 12-11-2017 on information received by PW3. himself and other staff and two mediators accompanied them and they reached lock center Inturu village by 5-45 p.m there they noticed A1 and A2 were selling liquor bottles on seeing them accused trying to skulk away they detained. PW3 interrogated A1 and A2 separately and obtained their names and address particulars as detailed in the mediators report. On further interrogation of PW3, A1 and A2 revealed that they were selling the liquor bottles for higher rate of Rs.10/- each per bottle by purchasing liquor bottles from Tenali, Ponnur and some other villages. Further they stated that they brought 74 bottles out of them they have sold 4 bottles and obtained Rs.400/-. Then PW3 verified the bag in the possession of the accused and found 70 liquor bottles of each 180 ml of brand MC dowel

XXX rum of two batches. He do not remember the batch number and its date. He separated two liquor bottles from the bag 1 for each batch for chemical analysis. Then PW3 arrested the accused, seized the liquor bottles, lifted the samples and also seized Rs.400/- from A1 which sale proceeds of liquor bottles under a cover of mediatornama in the presence of mediators P.W.2 and L.w.6 - K.Naveen Kumar.. Mediatornama was drafted by L.W.2 B. Ravibabu(P.C) to the dictation of the PW3. PW3 examined him and recorded his statement.

9.The prosecution examined one Marella Venkata Gurubrahmam, VRO as PW2 who acted as mediator in this case, he deposed that on 12-11- 2017 the S.I of police called him and L.W.6 K. Naveen Kumar VRA to their police station at about 4-30 p.m. Then myself and L.W.6 and other staff accompanied the S.I of police reached Lock center, Inturu village and found the both the accused for indulging in selling liquor bottles. By seeing police when the accused tried to skulk away, however police detained both the accused and PW3 interrogated A1 and A2 separately and ascertained their names and address particulars which were detailed in the mediator report and on the further interrogation of the S.I A1 and

A2 revealed that they have purchased 74 liquor bottles from the shops at

Ponnur and brought the same for sale at higher rate to get profit. Further

A1 and A2 stated that the they sold away 4 bottles and obtained sale proceed of Rs.400/-. A1 and A2 further stated that they have no license 4 or permission to sell the liquor bottles. Then PW3 seized 70 liquor bottles of Mcdowell No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX rum of each 180 ML and also seized sale proceeds of Rs.400/- from A1 and arrested both the accused under a cover of mediatornama drafted by one of the constable to the dictation of PW3. himself and L.W.6 attested on the mediator report.

Ex.P.1 is the mediator Report dt.12-11-2017.

10.The prosecution examined the investigating officer as PW3, he deposed that on 12-11-2017 he received credible information and himself, P.W.1 and two other mediators went to lock center Inturu village by 5-45 p.m. There they noticed A1 and A2 were selling liquor bottles.

On seeing them accused trying to skulk away, they detained them. He interrogated A1 and A2 separately and obtained their names and address particulars as detailed in the mediators report. On his further interrogation

A1 and A2 revealed that they were selling the liquor bottles for higher rate of Rs.10/- each per bottle by purchasing liquor bottles from Tenali, Ponnur and some other villages. Further they stated that they brought 74 liquor bottles, out of them they have sold 4 bottles and obtained Rs.400/-.

Then he verified the bag in the possession of the accused and found 70 liquor bottles of each 180 ml of brand MC dowel XXX rum of two batches.

Then he separated two liquor bottles from the bag 1 for each batch number as a sample for chemical analysis. Then he arrested the accused, seized the liquor bottles, lifted the samples and also seized

Rs.400/- from A1 which is a sale proceeds of liquor bottles under a cover of mediatornama (Ex.P.1) in the presence of mediators P.W.2 and L.w.6 K.

Naveen Kumar. He drafted mediatornama for the above proceedings.

Then he returned to the police station along with accused and seized property. Then he registered the Ex.P.1 mediatornama as a case in

Cr.No.83/2017 us/.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted FIR to this court by sending the copies of the FIR to all concerned officers. Ex.P.2 is FIR. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch (Ex.P3). He also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 , L.Ws2 to 4 B. Ravibabu,

D. Ravi, I. V. Subbarao respectively and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are sample bottles. MO.3 is cash of Rs.400/-. M.O.4 is remaining seized liquor bottles. He forwarded the A1 and A2 to this court for remand. He sent M.Os. 1 and 2 to the

Chemical Examiner, P & E department, Guntur for analysis and later they 5 received the Analysis report wherein the analyst opined that the samples are in Indian liquor. Ex.P.4 is Analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case

As seen from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, PW1 stated that they proceeded to scene of offence by auto by 5.00 p.m in uniform. PW1 conceded that they did not enquire any other independent persons to act as mediators in this case besides PW2 and LW6. PW2 stated that he proceeded to the scene of offence on information of PW3 on his bike. PW2 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. He conceded that police did not enquire any persons present at the scene of offence to act as mediators except him and LW6. PW3 stated that himself along with PW1 and 2 and other staff members proceeded to scene of offence in vehicle at 5.00 p.m. PW3 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. PW3 conceded that they did not enquire any other independent persons to act as mediators in this case besides PW2 and

LW6.

11.On careful perusal of the above evidence, PW1 is Police constable,

PW2 is the mediator, PW3 is Investigating Officer in this case. The complainant himself investigated the case, it is established principle law that the person who is a complainant in this case should not allow as an investigating officer, in such a case investigation certainly prejudice to the accused. The prosecution also did not enquire the any shops from which the accused purchased the said liquor bottles. In order to show that PW3 has made his best efforts to secure independent mediators, there is no iota of documentary proof such as issuing of notice in writings to the mediators, as contemplated U/s 100(4) of Cr.P.C is produced before this court. Investigating Officer could able to secure the panch witness (PW2) and PW3 to search and seizure the contraband, but the procedure contemplated under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C is not followed. Further, all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused are not sent to the

Chemical Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of AP in Mudavath mothia

Vs. State of AP reported in 2002(1) ALT Crl.437 held 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. Moreover, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

6

Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the accused is carrying the liquor bottles in order to sell the same for profit to ekeout her livelihood is not proved. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12.In the light of the above discussion I answered this point against the prosecution.

13.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e., MO.1, MO2 and MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.3 cash of Rs.400/- shall be confiscate to state.

Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution : PW.1: D.Nancharaiah, PC

PW.2: M.Venkata Gurubrahmama, VRO

PW.3: R.S Srinivas, SI of Police

For Defence: None Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Mediator Report Ex.P2FIR Ex.P3Rough sketch Ex.P4Chemical Analysis Report

For Defence:

Nil.

7

Material Objects marked

MO.1 & MO.2 : Sample bottles.

MO.3 : Cash of Rs.400/-

MO.4 : Remaining seized liquor bottles.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

8

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 18/2018 (Cr.No.83/2017 of Amarthaluru PS)

Nature of Offence: Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Date of Judgment: 28-06-2019

Offence Report ofApprehensionDate ofRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence or order complainant of accusedremandbail ment oftrial trial 12-11-201712-11-201721-02-201813-11-201715-11-201704-09-201825-06-201928-06-2019

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru P.S

Accused: 1. Bolimera Tirupathaiah, S/o Late Raja Rao, 55 years, Mala by caste, Inturu village, Amarthaluru Mandal.

2. Nadendla Raju, S/o Late nageswara Rao, 26 years, Mala by caste, Inturu Village, Amarthaluru mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e., MO.1, MO2 and MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.3 cash of Rs.400/- shall be confiscate to state.

II ADDL. JUDL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Smt Y.Premalatha, II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.NO.17/2018

Between:

The State: Sub- Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru P.S

…….. Complainant

Vs.

Songa Sriramulu, S/o Late Seshaiah, 70 years, Mala by caste, Yalavarru village, Amarthaluru Mandal. ……… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri G.Ravi Raju, advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru PS filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows, On 05-11-2017 at about 4.30 p.m, on information PW3 along with PW1, PW2, Lws 2, 3, and LW5 proceeded to Yalavarru village and found the accused was selling liquor bottels keeping in his beedi bunk at Malapalli street, Yelavarru village.

Then, PW3 seized 18 bottles of various brands ie., 1. 13 bottles of Old Tavern fine whisky, 180 m.l. batch No. 049, dt.16-10-2017 along with plastic bag from the beedi bunk of accused and also cash of Rs.300/- got by selling the liquor bottles and loose liquor from the possession of the accused and arrested the accused at 5.45 p.m and explained the grounds of his arrest as he violated the provisions of Excise Act under a cover of mediatornama duly attested by PW2 and LW5- Kothapalli Venkaiah, VRA. The accused was brought to police station at 6.30 p.m along with the seized property and registered the above mediatornama as Cr.No.82/2017 and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation he recorded the statements of

Pw1, Lw 2and 3 and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same. Later the accused were sent for remand to the Hon’ble court.

PW3 also sent the seized two sample bottles to Chemical examiner, Guntur for analysis and he received report from the same vide RC No.2510/2017, 2 dt.23-11-2017 and opined that it is Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused he was furnished with copies under Sec.207

Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to MO.4 . After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the accused is carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill for illegal sale and make profit of the same in order to eakeout his livelihood as contended by the prosecution and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

7.This is a case as per the prosecution that accused is selling the liquor bottles without having any valid license, in order to sell the same illegally for profit and with contraband at lock centre, Inturu Village and on interrogation of PW3 accused confessed the offence and basing on the said confession before the PW2 and Ex.P1 mediator report has been drafted and effected the arrest of accused and seized the contraband from the possession of accused and PW3 registered a case investigated into the matter and thereafter, as there is involvement accused in this crime, police laid charge sheet against the accused.

8.The prosecution examined B.Ravi Babu, PC, Amarthaluru PS, he deposed that on 05-11-2017 at about 4.30 on information received from

PW3 along with LW2-D.Ravi PC and LW3 KN Maneswara Rao, PC4353 and 3 also mediators PW2 and LW5-K. Venkaiah proceed at Yelavarru village to the bunk of accused. On seeing them the accused tried to skulk away, however they detained him, then PW3 interrogated him and ascertained the name and address particulars of the accused which were detailed in the mediators report. Then PW3 seized 13 old tavern fine whisky 180 m.l bottles and 5 MC dowells No.1 celebration luxury rum bottles 180 m.l and cash of Rs.300/- which is a sale proceed of liquor bottles from the accused. PW3 arrested the accused, seized the liquor bottles and cash of

Rs.300/- and lifted the sample bottles and on the bag containing remaining liquor bottles.

9.The prosecution examined one E.Rajasekhar, VRO as PW2 who acted as mediator in this case, he deposed that on 5.11.2017 at about 4.30 p.m PW3 called him and L.W.5 to their police station. Himself, L.W.5 and some other staff of the S.i of police accompanied him and they went to the petty bunk of accused by 5-00 p.m and noticed the accused indulging illegal selling of liquor bottles. On seeing the police when the accused tried to skulk away, police detained you. PW3 interrogated the accused and ascertained his name and address particulars detailed in the mediator report. On further interrogation accused revealed that accused brought 16 liquor bottles of Old Tavern Whisky of each 180 ML and 5 liquor bottles of McDowell No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX rum of 180 ML from shops at Tenali and selling the same for higher rate. The accused further revealed that he sold away 3 bottles of Old Tavern Whisky and obtained Rs.300/- of the sale proceed. Then PW3 arrested the accused, seized the 18 liquor bottles of each 180 ML by separating the two samples one from each brand. He also seized Rs.300/- which is a sale proceed of liquor bottles from the accused. All the proceedings were incorporated in the mediatornama. He drafted the mediatornama to the dictation of S.I.

Himself and L.W.5 attested in the said mediatornama. Ex.P.1 is the mediatornama, dt.5-11-2017.

10.The prosecution examined the investigating officer as PW3, on 5-11-2017 at about 4-30 p.m he received credible information about the selling of liquor, then himself, P.W.1, P.W.2, L.W.2 D.Ravi, L.W.3

K.N.Manneswara Rao and L.W.5 K. Venkaiah proceeded to the bunk of the accused at Yelavarru village. On seeing them accused trying to skulk 4 away, however they detained the accused, then he interrogated accused and ascertained the name and address particulars of the accused which he detailed in the mediators report. Then he seized 13 liquor bottles of each 180 ml of Old Tavern Fine Whisky and 5 liquor bottles of each 180 ml of brand MC dowel No.1 Celebration Luxury Rum and cash of Rs.300/- which is a sale proceed of liquor bottles from the accused. Then separated two bottles from the seized liquor bottles one from each brand for chemical Analysis. As such he arrested the accused seized the liquor bottles and cash of Rs.300/- by lifting samples under a cover of mediatornama (Ex.P.1) by affixing his seals and identification slips on the sample bottles and bag containing remaining liquor bottles. Then he returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property and sample bottles (Ex.P.1). Then he registered the Ex.P.1 mediatornama as a case in Cr.No.82/2017 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted FIR to this court by sending the copies of the FIR to all concerned officers. Ex.P.2 is FIR. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 , L.Ws2, and L.W.3 and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. Ex.P.3 is the rough sketch. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are sample bottles. MO.3 is cash of

Rs.300/-. M.O.4 is remaining seized liquor bottles. He forwarded the accused to this court for remand. He sent M.Os. 1 and 2 to the Chemical

Examiner, P & E department, Guntur for analysis and later they received the Analysis report wherein the analyst opined that the samples are in

Indian liquor. Ex.P.4 is Analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

As seen from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, PW1 admitted that they did not enquire any local people to act as mediators in this case. PW2 stated that he received a call from SI of police on 05-11- 2017 . PW2 conceded that police did not enquire the any persons present near the scene of offence to act as mediators in his presence. PW3 stated that himself along with PW1 and 2 and other staff members proceeded to scene of offence in vehicle at 4.30 p.m. PW3 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. He further conceded that many persons sit at the scene of offence. PW3 conceded that he did not enquire the persons to act as mediators in this case.

11.On careful perusal of the above evidence, PW1 is Police constable, 5

PW2 is the mediator, PW3 is Investigating Officer in this case. The complainant himself investigated the case, it is established principle law that the person who is a complainant in this case should not allow as an investigating officer, in such a case investigation certainly prejudice to the accused. The prosecution also did not enquire the any shops from which the accused purchased the said liquor bottles. In order to show that PW3 has made his best efforts to secure independent mediators, there is no iota of documentary proof such as issuing of notice in writings to the mediators, as contemplated U/s 100(4) of Cr.P.C is produced before this court. Investigating Officer could able to secure the panch witness (PW2) to search and seizure the contraband, but the procedure contemplated under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C is not followed. Further, all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused are not sent to the

Chemical Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of AP in Mudavath mothia

Vs. State of AP reported in 2002(1) ALT Crl.437 held 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. Moreover, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

12.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the accused is carrying the liquor bottles in order to sell the same for profit to ekeout her livelihood is not proved. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the light of the above discussion I answered this point against the prosecution.

13.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e., MO.1, MO2 and MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.3 cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscate to state.

Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

6

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution : PW.1: B.Ravi Babu, PC

PW.2: E.Rajasekhar, VRO

PW.3: R.S Srinivas, SI of Police

For Defence: None Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Mediatornama, dt.05-11-2017 Ex.P2FIR Ex.P3Rough sketch Ex.P4Chemical Analysis Report

For Defence:

Nil.

Material Objects marked

MO.1 & MO.2 : Sample bottles.

MO.3 : Cash of Rs.300/-

MO.4 : Remaining seized liquor bottles.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

7

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 17/2018 (Cr.No.82/2017 of Amarthaluru PS)

Nature of Offence: Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Date of Judgment: 28-06-2019

Offence Report ofApprehensionDate ofRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence or order complainant of accusedremandbail ment oftrial trial 05-11-201705-11-201721-02-201806-11-201708-11-201712-06-201825-06-201928-06-2019

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarthaluru P.S

Accused: Songa Sriramulu, S/o Late Seshaiah, 70 years, Mala by caste, Yalavarru village, Amarthaluru Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e., MO.1, MO2 and MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.3 cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscate to state.

II ADDL. JUDL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Smt Y.Premalatha, II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.NO.8/2019

Between:

The State: Inspector of Police, Proh& Excise station Tenali P.S

…….. Complainant

Vs.

Varagani Chinnappa, S/o Mathaiah, 52 years, caste Madiga, R/o Kothareddypalem Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. ……… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri C. Venkatadri, and Sri. B.Ramesh, advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector, Proh & Excise, Tenali filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows, On 02-10-2018, PW1 left the Proh. & Excise Station, Tenali along with Lws 1 and 2 while patrolling in the limits of the Proh & Excise offences, reached the scene of offence ie.,

Sangam Jagarlamudi village, near auto stand at about 10.30 am and noticed the accused, standing having possession of holding a white colour bag, in his right hand and on seeing the Excise official in uniform he got perturbed and tried to fled away from the scene and observed the same PW1 detained the accused with the help of his staff and on enquiry he admitted that bag held by him having liquor bottles. Then, PW1 deputed LW1 to secure mediators and after some time he returned and reported that none of the villagers came forward to act as mediators in Excise cases and the revenue officials are not available in the village at that time and in the said circumstances,

PW1-P&E Inspector, Tenali decided to proceed under special report and on verification of the bag held by the accused, they found 18 bottles of Old

Tavern Fine whisky of 180 m.l each. On enquiry the accused furnished his name and other particulars. On further enquiry the accused replied that he purchased the liquor bottled from unknown person. PW1- Inspector, Proh &

Excise, Tenali arrested the accused and seized the case property, drawn one 2 sample from the contraband under cover of special report which was scribed by LW2 in order to send for chemical analysis and kept the remaining contraband in the same bag tied and affixed the identity slips to the sample bottles and the bag in which remaining contraband is kept. Then PW1 left the spot along with accused and material objects, reached to Proh. & Excise

Station, Tenali and handed over the Special report, accused and material objectes to the sentry of Proh.& Excise Station, Tenali. Then PW2 registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 91/2018 and submitted the copies of FIR to all officers concerned and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he sent the accused to judicial remand. He sent the sample for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under

Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

3.This court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused he was furnished with copies under Sec.207

Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused was read over and explained to her in

Telugu language and she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the accused is carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill for illegal sale and make profit of the same in order to eakeout his livelihood as contended by the prosecution and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

7.The case of the prosecution is that Inspector, Proh & Excise, Tenali examined as PW1 who along with other staff while conducting patrolling for

Proh & Excise offences and reached the scene of offence and found the 3 accused with by keeping white colour bag in his right hand and he apprehended the accused when he tried to fled away from the scene and the accused admitted that there are liquor bottles in the bag held by him and

PW1 in order to verify the said bag has sent LW1- P&E Constable to secure mediators and after some time he returned back and reported that none of the villagers has come-forward to act as mediators in Excise offences and the

Village Revenue Officials were not available in the village and in the said circumstances, PW.1 proceeded under special report and recorded the confession and recovery of the accused under Ex.P1. The sample was also drawn from the contraband and seized from the possession of the accused in order to send for chemical analysis vide MO.1 . After completion of Ex.P1, the accused along with contraband seized and the sample bottle vide MO.1 and was brought to Proh & Excise Station, Tenali and handed over to the Special

Report, accused and material objectes to the sentry of Proh.& Excise Station,

Tenali. Then PW2 registered the said Special report as a case vide Cr.91/2018 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, he produced the accused before this Hon’ble Court for Judicial remand. PW1 sent MO.1 for chemical analysis and received analysis report vide Ex.P3 opining that the samples contain “Indian liquor”.

He has also addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Proh & Excise,

Guntur for issuing confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband in this case and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

8.The above said contention of the prosecution has been deposed by

PW1 and a glance of the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 10.30 a.m, and securing independent mediators at the scene of offence is not a difficult task for the Investigating agency as the place of offence is busy locality. The proceeding under special report does not amount to any irregularity, but at the same time, the Investigating agency has to show that securing independent mediators to record the confession and recovery of the accused is remote chance. There is no technical flaw in proceedings under Ex.P1, but at the same time making a bald statement that no independent mediators were available at the scene of offence and the Excise officials tried their best to secure independent mediators is not believable. Ex.P1 is an unilateral document and the confession and recovery of the accused basing on Ex.P1 on the testimony of

PW.1 who is an interested witness to the prosecution cannot be relied upon.

According to the prosecution, the accused is in possession of 18 bottles of 4

Old Tavern Fine Whisky each 180 m.l out of them MO.1 sample bottle was drawn from the contraband in order to sent for chemical analysis. It is the defence of the accused that he never confessed this offence and no recovery was made from his possession which is denied by him. In order to show that

PW1 has made his best efforts to secure independent mediators, there is no iota of documentary proof such as issuing of notice to mediators or to any other village revenue officials, except the testimony of PW1. In the aforesaid circumstances it is not believable that PW1 and the remaining raid party has gone for patrolling Proh & Excise offences.

9.According to the prosecution, after completion of Ex.P1, he brought the accused along with contraband seized and MO.1 to the Proh & Excise

Station, Tenali and handed over the Special report, material objects and accused to the Station sentry. Then PW2 registered the said Special Report as a case vide Cr.No. 91/2018 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation, he produced the accused

before this Hon’ble Court for Judicial remand. He sent MO.1 for chemical

analysis and received analysis report vide Ex.P3 opining that the samples contain “Indian liquor”. He has also addressed a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for issuing confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband in this case and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused under Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act 1968. Registering the case, sending MO.1 sample for chemical analysis receiving chemical analysis report vide Ex.P3 and addressing letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Proh & Excise, Guntur for confiscation and destruction orders of the remaining contraband are all formalities to proceed in the matter. When the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable the entire case of the prosecution fails. This court is of considered opinion that the Excise officials has made a table investigation and filed statistical charge sheet against the accused without projecting and proving the case regarding Ex.P1 and therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believable.

10.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the confession and recovery of the accused regarding contraband seized that the accused is carrying the same in order to sell the same for profit to ekeout his livelihood is unbelievable and in order to show to their superiors that they are making patrolling for Excise offences as per their direction and they have foisted this false case against the accused and therefore, the accused is 5 entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968.

11.In the light of the above discussion I answered this point against the prosecution.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e.,

MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution : PW.1: S.Mohan Rao, Sub-Inspector, P&E STF, Tenali

PW.2: Sk.Subhani, Sub-Inspector, P&E Tenali

For Defence: None Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Special report. Ex.P2FIR vide Cr.No.91/2018 of Proh & Excise Station, Tenali U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 Ex.P3Analysis Report vide R.C.No.3217/2018, dt.16-11-2018 issued by Govt.Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur.

For Defence:

Nil.

Material Objects marked

MO.1 : Sample bottle.

II ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

6

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.8/2019 (Cr.No.91/2019 of Proh & Excise Station, Tenali)

Nature of Offence: Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Date of Judgment: 28-06-2019

Offence Report ofApprehensionDate ofRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence or complainant of accusedremandbail ment oftrial order trial 02-10-201802-10-201818-02-201903-10-201808-10-201814-08-201826-06-201928-06-2019

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant: State: The Inspector of Police, Proh & Excise, Tenali

Accused: Varagani Chinnappa, S/o Mathaiah, 52 years, caste Madiga, R/o Kothareddypalem Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. So far, the case property i.e., MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

II ADDL. JUDL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TENALI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

APGU240001792021 163AMARTHALURU PS PRC/10/2021

The SHO Amarthaluru PS Vs. Mande Samiyelu

COMMITTAL ORDER

( If the accused is in jail)

The accused is present. He is charged with the offence punishable under 302,449 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of , which is exclusively triable by the

Court of Session. The copies of police report and other documents as specified in section 207 (or section 208) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been supplied to the accused. The case will have to be committed to the Court of Session. Hence the order:-

1. The case be committed to the Court of Session.

2. The accused is directed to appear before the Court of Session on ...............................

3. The record of the case, the documents and articles, which are to be produced in evidence, shall be sent to the Court of Session.

4. The police Station Officer, AMARTHALURU PS be directed to produce muddemal property in the Court of Session on or before .....................................

positively.

5. The Public Prosecutor shall be notified of the commitment of the case to the

Court of Session.

Date : (Sd/- Y.Prema Latha,)

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TENALI ,GUNTUR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

APGU240001382021

IN THE COURT OF

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT TENALI ,GUNTUR

(Presided Over by Y.Prema Latha, )

CC/103/2021 (PROSECUTION): The SHO Tenali Rural PS Through Police Station Officer TENALI TALUK PS 277, Tenali village and mandal

TENALI GUNTUR

VERSUS Kanaparthy yesupadam Age: 21 Burripalem village,Tenali mandal 2:Kanaparthi Bujji @ Alisu Age: 40 Burripalem village and Tenali mandal 3:Kanaparthi Ratna Prabhakar Age: 45 Burripalem village and Tenali manda ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Kanaparthy yesupadam Advocate , appearing for ,2, 3 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 323,506,509r/w34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 10-07-2021) This case is settled before Lok Adalat (Sd/- Y.Prema Latha,)

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TENALI GUNTUR