Smt. Y.Srilakshmi

-- 1 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :

KOVVUR.

PRESENT: Smt. Sri Lakshmi Yarlagadda

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I class, Kovvur.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE NO.486/2016.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Kovvur (T) Police Station. (Cr.No. 249 /15). … Complainant.

and

Devarakonda Prabhakara Rao… Accused

This case is coming on 24.4.17 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri A. Sudha Deepika, Advocate

for the accused and upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having

stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The sub-inspector of police, Kovvur Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420, 506 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

2.2.The husband of L.W.1-Jonnada Nagamani worked in railways and retired from service in the year 2010 and later he was died due to ill-health. The death benefits of her husband to a tune of Rs.4,26,842/- were deposited in Andhra Bank, Kovvur. On 21.8.2013 she went to

Andhra Bank to withdraw the amount. On coming to know about the same, the accused met her in Andhra bank and told her that he will fill the withdrawal form as she do not know English and by saying so he filled up the form for Rs.3,00,000/-, withdrawn the amount and gave it to her. Then the accused represented to L.W.1 that if the balance amount of Rs.1,27,342 is retained in the account, the creditors may file -- 2 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016 the petition for the amount and by representing so he forcibly made her to sign on withdrawal form and transferred the amount to the account of

Katam Dayamani, who is his aunt and later withdrawn the amount and escaped. Later she went to the village, questioned through elders. On that the accused shown some false promissory notes by alleging that she took credit from him in the past. When she again questioned him for the amount, he was threatening to kill her. On that she gave report to police.

2.3.Basing on the report of L.W.1, P.W.4-S.S.S.Pavan Kumar, SI of

Police, Kovvur Town P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.249/15, U/Sec.420, 506 of I.P.C., issued FIR and did entire investigation including serving of notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. After competition of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. Therefore the accused is liable for punishment under section 420, 506 of IPC.

3.Upon considering the charge sheet and other relevant records, the court took cognizance of offence under section 420, 506 of

I.P.C. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.On examination of the Accused under section 239 Cr.P.C, he denied the allegations levelled against him. Hence a charge under section 420, 506 of I.P.C. is framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the Accused has been tried for the said offence.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4.

Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked. The evidence of L.W.1 is closed since she was died. The evidence of LWs. 4 and 5 is given up by learned A.P.P.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating -- 3 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016 circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. After having heard the rival contentions of the learned A.P.P.

for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the Accused, the point germane for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 420, 506 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused forcibly obtained the signature of the de facto-complainant on the withdrawal form and transferred the amount to his mother in law's account and thereby he cheated the defacto complainant.

9.The accused is not disputing the alleged transaction. But his case is that the defacto complainant barrowed amount from his mother in law and to clear off the said debt she transferred the amount and he did not cheat her.

10.At the outset it is pertinent to mention that there is no direct evidence on record to show that the accused forcibly obtained the signature of defacto complainant and got transferred the amount to his mother in law's account and that he was present in the bank on the date of alleged incident. The evidence of L.W.1/defacto complainant is closed since she was died.

11.As per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 they came to know through L.W.1 that she went to Andhra Bank, Kovvur to withdraw the amount and there she got acquaintance with accused and she withdrawn the amount and after 10 days again she went to bank and came to know that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the -- 4 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016 account of accused mother in law and later they went to the house of accused and he told them that he would repay the amount later, but he failed to repay the amount. As per the contents of report of L.W.1/ defacto complainant on 21-8-2013 itself the accused made her to believe that anyone may file petitions and got attachment of amount in the account and by saying so he obtained her signatures and transferred the amount to his account. It seems that on 21.8.2013 itself she had knowledge about the transfer of amount. But in her 161 Cr.P.C statement she changed her version and stated that after days when she went to bank she came to know that on 21-8-2013 the accused transferred the amount. There was no explanation from the prosecution as to why P.W.1 changed her version. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contrary to the allegations of L.W.1. No where they deposed that the accused has shown the promissory notes and threatened L.W.1 to kill if she demands for money as alleged by L.W.1.

12.As per the evidence of P.W.3, who is bank manager by the time of alleged transaction, on 21.8.2013 L.W.1 withdrawn an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- and transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of one Katam

Damayanthi. During the cross examination he admitted that without the knowledge and consent of customer there is no possibility to transfer the amount to other account. He also admitted that if there is any undue influence it will record in CC TV cameras.

13.The evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that unless L.W.1 is willing to transfer the amount there is no possibility to transfer the amount to the account of others. P.W.4 also admitted that there are financial transactions between the accused and L.W.1. The evidence of

P.W.3 clearly shows that L.W.1 herself transferred the amount to the account of accused mother in law. Had really the accused had an intention to cheat L.W.1 there is no necessity to him to transfer the -- 5 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016 amount to his mother in law's account by leaving documentary evidence and he can straight away withdraw the amount at the cash counter itself. If really the accused forcibly obtained the signature of L.W.1 to transfer the amount there is no necessity to her to wait for two years to give complaint. There was no explanation from the prosecution for such inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The another circumstance that created a doubt about the case of prosecution is different versions of

L.W.1. She gave one version in her report and another version in 161

Cr.P.C. statement. If the alleged incident is true there is no possibility to give different versions. The admission of P.W.4 that there are financial transactions between accused and L.W.1 also supports the plea of accused that L.W.1 herself transferred the amount to clear off the debt.

Mere transferring the amount to the account of accused mother in law cannot make the accused liable for punishment. The prosecution must prove that the accused made false representation to L.W.1 and by believing such representation, L.W.1 transferred the amount. But there is no such evidence on record to prove the same. In the absence of any cogent, direct and convincing evidence, the accused cannot be convicted.

14.In view of the above said discussion it is held that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge under sections 420, 506 of I.P.C. and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bods of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Y. SRILAKSHMI,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

-- 6 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.486 of 2016

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For the prosecution: For the Defence:

P.W.1 : Marumudi Nagamani-- NONE --

P.W.2 : Konde Venkateswarlu

P.W.3 : K.V.V.Satyanarayana

P.W.4 : S.S.S.Pavan Kumar, SI of police, Kovvur Town P.S.

Exhibits marked

For the prosecution: For the Defence: Nil

Ex.P.1/11.11.15 : Report of L.W.1

Ex.P.2/12.05.16 : Letter addressed by P.W.3 along with attested copies of two withdrawal forms.

Ex.P.3/11.11.15 : Original F.I.R.

Ex.P.4/01.12.15: Letter addressed to Manager, Andhra Bank Kovvu.

Ex.P.5/23.04.16 : Reminder and notice u/Sec.90 Cr.P.C. issued to Manager, Andhra Bank, Kovvur.

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Id/- Y.S.L.,

II A.J.M.F.C., KOVVUR.

-- 1 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.191 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: KOVVUR.

PRESENT: SMT. Y. SRILAKSHMI

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Saturday, this the 29th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No. 191 of 2017

Between: The state: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kovvur.

.....Complainant.

And

1. Jaladi Nani.

2. Rapaka Bangaraiah.

.....Accused.

This case is coming on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of

Sri P.B.R. Prasad, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The gravamen of the charge against A1 and A2 is that they were found in possession of 15 litres of I.D. Liquor and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P Prohibition Act.

2.1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-

On 08-11-2014 at about 05-00 a.m., when P.W.1 along with his staff members patrolling for Prohibition & Excise offices in Pallantala village of

Devarapalli, the accused were found in possession of 15 litres of I.D. Liquor and the contraband was seized under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report. A1 was arrested at the scene of offence and sent him to judicial remand and A2 was absconded at the scene and later he obtained anticipatory bail and thereby committed the offence, punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P

Prohibition Act and are liable to be convicted for the said offence.

2.This court took the cognizance under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of the -- 2 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.191 of 2017

A.P., Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied the offence. Hence, the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the accused has been tried for the said charge.

4.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2,

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1 are got marked.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

6.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution establishes its case by proving arrest

of the accused and seizure of the contra band under cover of

Ex.P.1 special report to bring home the guilt of the accused for

the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 were found in possession of 15 litres of I.D. liquor; that they were arrested and the contraband was seized under cover of Ex.P1 special report.

8.It has been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination that

Devarapalli village is a major Panchayat and all the village officials will be -- 3 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.191 of 2017 available round the clock. In such a case, it is improbable to believe that no one came forward to act as mediator for the search and seizure of the contraband and is devoid of appreciation, as the alleged scene of offence is situated in busy locality and any number of persons can be secured to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contra band. Thus, it manifests from the testimony of P.W.1 that the mandatory requirements under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., has not been complied with, in securing two or more respectable and independent persons of the locality to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contraband. In these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W1 in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. The evidence of P.W.2 who is Investigating Officer and whose evidence is circumstantial in nature is of least significance and cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused.

9.For the afore said reasons, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P., Act beyond all reasonable doubt and that the suggested plea of the accused that the case has been foisted against themfor statistical purpose cannot be ruled out.

10.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P., Prohibition Act and are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Y. SRILAKSHMI,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOVVUR.

-- 4 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.191 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1:A.Srinivasu, S.I. of Police, Kovvur-- None ---

P & E P.S.

PW2:I.Srinu Babu, C.I. of Police, Kovvur P & E P.S.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/08-11-2014:Special Report Ex.P2/08-11-2014:First Information Report Ex.P3/3-1-2015:Laboratory Analysis Report Ex.P4/16-12-2014:Attested copy of Proceedings of DCP., P & E, Eluru, West Godavari

For Defence:---- NIL ----

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: 300 ml. sample bottle

Id/- Y.S.L.,

II A.J.M.F.C., KOVVUR.

-- 1 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.194 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: KOVVUR.

PRESENT: SMT. Y. SRILAKSHMI

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Saturday, this the 29th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No. 194 of 2017

Between: The state: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kovvur.

.....Complainant.

And

1. Komarapu Dhana Lakshmi.

2. Komarapu Mahendra

.....Accused.

This case is coming on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of

Sri Marri Venkatesu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The gravamen of the charge against A1 and A2 is that they were found in possession of 140 litres of I.D. Liquor and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P Prohibition Act.

2.1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-

On 08-07-2015 at about 07-30 a.m., when P.W.1 along with his staff members patrolling for Prohibition & Excise offices in Lakshmipuram village, the A1 was found in possession of 140 litres of I.D. Liquor and the contraband was seized under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report. A1 confessed that A2 is her son and he manufacturing the I.D. liquor. A1 was arrested at the scene of offence and sent him to judicial remand and A2 was absconded at the scene and later he obtained anticipatory bail and thereby committed the offence, punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act and are liable to be convicted for the said offence.

-- 2 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.194 of 2017

2.This court took the cognizance under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of the

A.P., Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied the offence. Hence, the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the accused has been tried for the said charge.

4.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MOs.1 to 4 are got marked.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

6.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution establishes its case by proving arrest

of the accused and seizure of the contra band under cover of

Ex.P.1 special report to bring home the guilt of the accused for

the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 were found in possession of 140 litres of I.D. liquor; that they were arrested and the contraband was seized under cover of Ex.P1 special report.

8.It has been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination that -- 3 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.194 of 2017

Lakshmipuram village is a major Panchayat and all the village officials will be available round the clock. In such a case, it is improbable to believe that no one came forward to act as mediator for the search and seizure of the contraband and is devoid of appreciation, as the alleged scene of offence is situated in busy locality and any number of persons can be secured to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contra band. Thus, it manifests from the testimony of P.W.1 that the mandatory requirements under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., has not been complied with, in securing two or more respectable and independent persons of the locality to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contraband. In these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W1 in the absence of corroboration from an independent source.

9.For the afore said reasons, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P., Act beyond all reasonable doubt and that the suggested plea of the accused that the case has been foisted against themfor statistical purpose cannot be ruled out.

10.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P., Prohibition Act and are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

MOs.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Y. SRILAKSHMI,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOVVUR.

-- 4 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.194 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1:G.Tatarao, S.I. of Police, Kovvur P-- None ---

& E P.S.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/08-07-2015:Special Report Ex.P2/08-07-2015:First Information Report Ex.P3/18-08-2015:Laboratory Analysis Report Ex.P4/27-08-2015:Attested copy of Proceedings of DCP., P & E, Eluru, West Godavari

For Defence:---- NIL ----

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: 300 ml. sample bottle MO.2: 300 ml. sample bottle MO.3: 300 ml. sample bottle MO.4: 300 ml. sample bottle

Id/- Y.S.L.,

II A.J.M.F.C., KOVVUR.

-- 1 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.218 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: KOVVUR.

PRESENT: SMT. Y. SRILAKSHMI

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Saturday, this the 29th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No. 218 of 2017

Between: The state: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kovvur.

.....Complainant.

And

Kadali Durga

.....Accused.

This case is coming on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of

Sri T.Rabeendar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that she was found in possession of two litres of I.D. Liquor and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P Prohibition Act.

2.1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-

On 01-09-2015 at about 1-00 P.M., the accused was arrested at

Subbrayapuram village when she was found in possession of two litres of I.D.

Liquor and the contraband was seized under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report and thereby committed the offence, punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P Prohibition Act and is liable to be convicted for the said offence.

3.This court took the cognizance under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of the

A.P., Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., she denied the -- 2 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.218 of 2017 offence. Hence, the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act is framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the accused has been tried for the said charge.

5.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2.

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1 are got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution establishes its case by proving arrest

of the accused and seizure of the contra band under cover of

Ex.P.1 special report to bring home the guilt of the accused for

the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of two litres of I.D. liquor; that she was arrested and the contraband was seized under the cover of Ex.P1 special report.

9.It has been admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination that

Devarapalli village is a major Panchayat and all the village officials will be available round the clock. In such a case, it is improbable to believe that no one came forward to act as mediator for the search and seizure of the contraband and is devoid of appreciation, as the alleged scene of offence is situated in busy locality and any number of persons can be secured to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contra band. Thus, it manifests from the testimony of P.W.1 that the mandatory requirements under Section -- 3 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.218 of 2017 100(4) Cr.P.C., has not been complied with, in securing two or more respectable and independent persons of the locality to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contraband. In these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimonies of P.W1 in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. The evidence of P.W.2 who is Investigating

Officer and whose evidence is circumstantial in nature is of least significance and cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused.

10.For the afore said reasons, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge u/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P., Act beyond all reasonable doubt and that the suggested plea of the accused that the case has been foisted against her for statistical purpose cannot be ruled out.

11.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the charge under

Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P., Prohibition Act and is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for Six months. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Y. SRILAKSHMI,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1:A.Srinivasu, S.I. of Police, Kovvur-- None ---

P & E P.S.

PW2:G.Tatarao, S.I. of Police, Kovvur P

& E P.S.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/01-09-2015:Special Report Ex.P2/01-09-2015:First Information Report Ex.P3/23-11-2015:Laboratory Analysis Report -- 4 -- II A.J.F.C.M, Kovvur C.C.No.218 of 2017

Ex.P4/09-10-2015:Attested copy of Proceedings of DCP., P & E, Eluru, West Godavari

For Defence:---- NIL ----

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: 300 ml. sample bottle

Id/- Y.S.L.,

II A.J.M.F.C., KOVVUR.