Ziauddin Shaik

1

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

In the Court of PRL. Judicial I Class Magistrate Cum PRL.CIVIL

JUDGE(JD), Palakol

Present: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class cum PCJ(JD), FAC/ I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Palakol. Friday, this the 19th day of July, 2024

CC No.278/2022

Between :

State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Palakole …Complainat

And

Kagitha Bapanaiah, s/o. Venkata Rao, age. 35 years, R/o. Venkatapuram village, Palakol Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 12-7-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri R.Deva Raju learned Counsel for accused in open Court, and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB), Palakole filed charge-sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.61/2020 of their Police Station for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (for brevity hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

Page 1 2

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows :

On 9-5-2020 at about 8.30 am when L.W.3/J.Ram Prakash,

SEB Inspector, Palakol with the assistance of his staff having accompanied with L.W.1/P.Nageswara Rao,volunteer and LW2/

K.Syambabu,Volunteer of Venkatapuram village conducted raids and when they reached at the opposite road margin in Barrel ground situated at the Lankalakoderu to Aratlakatta road in Venkatapuram vilalge of Palkaol Mandal, they found one person and on watching them he tried to escape at that place but on suspicious LW3/SEB Inspector detained the person with the assistance of his staff in the presence of mediator/L.W.1 and on enquiry, that accused disclosed his identity and confessed as to his possession of liquor bottles and then the said person was arrested under the cover of mediators report, based on it registered a case in Cr.No.61/2020 u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition(Amendment) Act,2020, investigated into and laid charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition(Amendment) Act,2020 against the accused.

3. Upon perusal of material placed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

S.E.B., this Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused. On

Page 2 3

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

appearance of accused, copies were furnished as contemplated

U/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after for short referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4. The accused was examined U/Sec.240(2) of Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed u/s.239 CrPC, and was explained to the accused in his mother tongue i.e., Telugu, on that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, the investigating officer listed 4 witnesses of whom, L.Ws.1 to 3/volunteers/P.Nageswara Rao and

SriK.Syhambabu of Venkatapuram village,Palakol Mandal and SEB

Inspector are listed to speak as to conducting of raid, seizure of property, and drafting of mediators report. L.W.3 /

J.Ramprakash,Inspector, S.E.B., Palakole is listed to speak registration of F.I.R., sending samples for chemical analysis, investigation and filing of charge sheet etc of such witnesses the prosecution examined the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 only.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating

Page 3 4

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

material recorded against him and reported no defence evidence. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW4/E.Suresh

Raju,HC,SEB,Palakol to avoid the contradictions.

7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused.

8. Now, the points for determination are…

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 ?

9. To prove their case, the evidence let in by prosecution through its witnesses coupled with documentary evidence is to be looked into:

10. It is the evidences of P.W.1/Volunteer that he has received accused, Special report and seized property from LW3 and based on which he has registered the crime No.61/2020 for the offence punishable under sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. He has issued

FIR/Ex.P2, drafted special report/Ex.P1 received three sample bottles i.e, MO1 is 1 liter of ID liquor. It is his admission in cross examination that he has not obtained permission from his superior officers in writing and he drafted Ex.P1 at road margin and Lws 1 and 2 are admitted that there are no signatures and thumb impression of the accused found in

Page 4 5

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

it and he added that the paper was torn.

11. In continuation, it is the evidence of P.W.2/ P.Nageswara Rao and PW3 K.Syambabu turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW4/Sk.Khasim,SI of Police,SEB,Palakol that he received record from PW1 and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet in this case.

12. Keeping in view of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, from the recitals of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6, the tested samples MO.1 are analyzed as

Indian Made Liquor and as such the Investigation Officer laid charge sheet. Mere basing on the analysis report, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused committed the offence and it is for the prosecution to prove that the tested sample is seized from the possession of the accused and the accused is allowing the people to consume alcohol as alleged by prosecution.

13. Now, considering whether the prosecution is able to connect the accused to the alleged offences, the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 is to be scrutinized carefully. Needless to say that P.W.2 is mediator and P.W.1 is the Police Personnel. Thus, while weighing the evidences of these

P.Ws.1 to 4, the Court has to take much care.

Page 5 6

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

14. It is the case of prosecution that on 9-5-2020 at about 8.30 am accused not having any license or permit to possess the above liquor and the same were seized under Ex.P1, which is denied by the accused.

15. But at the same time, it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that he has not visited the alleged scene of offence before filing charge sheet and he has not examined any witnesses in this case. Hence, his evidence is of no use to prove the case, as mere filing of charge sheet is not sufficient to connect the accused. At the same time, P.W.1 admits that he has drafted the mediators report at road margin and Ex.P1 does not containing the batch number and serial number and manufacture details and he has not obtained permission from his superior officers in writing and he has not put his initial at over writings.

16. To prove it’s case in these aspects, there is the testimony of

P.Ws.1 to 4. No doubt, P.W.2 is the mediator, PWs1,4 are police officers who was conferred with the authorities of Police, who has to scrupulously follow the procedure laid down U/Sec.100 of Cr.P.C., while conducting search and seizure. No doubt, the material on record shows that except the excise officials, no other independent witness was either listed as witness or is examined before this court, in support

Page 6 7

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

of the case of prosecution. Even in such circumstances, there is every possibility for the said P.W.1 to secure the presence of independent witnesses, even while conducting the proceedings. In the absence of following of such procedure laid down, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 can be believed as the seized contraband is available in open market. It is also relevant to note that inspite of taking ample time the prosecution has not produced the witnesses and not even shown any efforts to say that the summons were even served on witnesses. As such as evidence of Lws 4 and 5 are closed the registration of FIR itself is not brought on record. Even consider the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the investigating officer has not scrupulously followed Sec.55 of A.P.Excise Act which can be found as violation and certainly a latch and part of prosecution to believe its case keeping in view of the observations made in the Judgment of

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh between Pothabathula Abbulu

Vs State of AP 1 .

17. Apart from this one can say that the Hon’ble

Apex Court observed on many occasions that the

Revenue people and the Police Personnel will alw be hands in gloves and as such while deciding a case solely basing on their testimony, the Court shall consider the rest of the evidences and if the rest of the evidences

Page 7 8

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

inspires the confidence of the Court, then only, the Court may proceed with convicting the offender. No doubt, there is no straight jacket formula that the evidence of Village

Revenue Officials cannot be believed. For this case on hand, the contraband said to be seized from the possession of accused is very much available in open market. Apart from that the Investigation Officer while sending the sample for chemical analysis has to follow the stipulated procedure and the same shall be reflected in his proceedings not only at the time of evidence, but also at the time of drafting mediators report, failure in recording the way of lifting sample can also be doubted in considering the case of the prosecution.

17. Thus, because of the defective investigation and presentation of such improper and insufficient material before this court, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the

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

(Amendment) Act, 2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248

(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands in force for a

Page 8 9

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

period of Six (6) months U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C and that he shall

appear before the Appellate Court in the event of his receiving

summons within six months from today. M.O.1/ sample bottle is

ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Dictated to personal assistant, directly typed on my computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 19th day of July,2024.

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class/PCJ(JD) Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence PW.1: J. Ram Prakash -None- PW.2: P.Nageswara Rao PW.3 : M.K.Syambabu PW.4 : Sk.Khasim

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Mediator report dt.9-5-2020 Ex.P2: First Information Report dt.9-5-2020 Ex.P3: Letter of advice dt 9-5-2020 Ex.P4: Laboratory analysis Report dt. Ex.P5: Destruction proceedings. Ex.P6 : Signature on Ex.P1

Defence -Nil- Material Objects: Mo.s 1 : seized sample bottle

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class/PCJ(JD)

Palakol

Page 9 10

PJFCM FAC/AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.278/2022 Dt.19-7-2024.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS CUM PCJ(JD), FAC/IAJFCM

PALAKOL.

CC No.278/2022

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest of the Commence- Close of Sentence or accusedment of trialtrialorder 9-5-20209-5-202041(A) 30-01-202312-7-202419-7-2024 Cr.P.C notice.

Name of the Complainant The State : Sub Inspector of Police,

SEB,Palakol. ….. Complainant

And

Kagitha Bapanaiah, s/o. Venkata Rao, age. 35 years, R/o. Venkatapuram village,

Palakol Mandal. ….. Accused

Offence:U/Sec.7 (A)r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Finding: “Found not guilty”.

Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses. Hence the delay.

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class/PCJ(JD) Palakol Copy submitted to:

Page 10

1 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

PALAKOL.

Present: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK

Principal Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Palakol

Thursday, this the 7th day of August, 2025

CC No. 135/2023

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru Police Station.

….. Complainant

And

Sirra Santhi Sudha, W/o Gannayya Sastry, 31 years, Pappu Gunta, H/o Jagannadhapuram Village, Poduru Mandal.

….. Accused

This case is presented on 01.08.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri A.N.Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

The accused is arrayed before this court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 of IPC in Crime No.72/2023 of Poduru Police

Station.

2 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

02. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :-

On 21.03.2023 the accused picked up quarrel with one of the member of Caste Sangham and cursed him. On knowing the same, LW.2 Yesu

Padam abused her. For which the accused suspected LW.1/S.Dhana

Lakshmi (hereinafter called as Complainant). On 23.03.2023 the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant near her house and beat her with hands and also insulted her modesty by stating that the Complainant conceived through the husband of accused. On that the complainant presented a report to the police on 03.04.2023. Basing on which a case is registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 509 of IPC vide

Cr.No.72/2023 of Poduru PS. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation LW.8 filed charge sheet. Hence, this case.

03.This case is taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 323 and 509 of IPC against accused.

04.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and she was examined under Section 239 of 3 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the substance of the charges framed against accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 323 and 509 of IPC in Telugu to the accused and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW8/D.Ram Kumar, SI of Poduru PS as the evidence of PW.7 is corroborating with the evidence of LW.8.

06.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

07.Heard both sides.

08. Now the point for determination is :-  Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

4 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

P O I N T :-

09. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.03.2023 the accused beat

PW.1 with hands and insulted her modesty as such PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report.

10. It is the case of defence that, accused did not commit any offense and she was falsely implicated in this case.

11.Now, to prove the offenses under Sections 323, 509 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 and insulted her modesty by stating that she conceived through her husband.

12.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7. PW.1 who is defacto-complainant she deposed that in the month of

March, 2023 when she was pregnant, she was walking on the road at 8-30

P.M, suddenly their Pastor started prayers in their Church without informing them, then she went inside the church and observed that the accused and

Pastor were performing prayers in it, then PW.2 who is their caste elder stated them not to perform prayers without informing them and went away, again on the next day while prayers there was an altercation between the 5 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

accused and one Digamarti Yesu Raju, in the said altercation the accused abused PW.1 in filthy language by stating that PW.1 informed their caste elders with respect to performing of prayers in the church, the accused placed her hand on the stomach of PW.1 and beat her, the accused did not heed the words of her mother and the same was videographed and she sent the same to her sister-in-law who is in abroad, she uploaded the same in tik tok, the accused telephoned husband of PW.1 and informed that her husband is responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1, then the husband of

PW.1 telephoned her and abused her, then she placed the matter before the elders, after two months of the incident she presented Ex.P1 report.

13.As can be seen from Ex.P1 report, PW.1 stated that on 23.03.2023 the accused came to her house and abused her in filthy language and also beat her. But during examination in chief, PW.1 deposed that when she was walking on the road, the accused beat her by placing her hand on her stomach. It shows that there are contradictions in her own evidence as the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with Ex.P1 report.

14.PWs.2 to 4 who are said to be eye witnesses of the alleged offence, they deposed that the accused abused PW.1 in filthy language, the accused, her children and her mother beat PW.1 due to which she fell down.

6 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

However, it is not the case of the prosecution as the children and mother of the accused beat PW.1, due to which she fell off on the road. PW.1 also did not depose anything against children and mother of accused as they beat her. It shows that the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 and prosecution. Since the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW.1, as such it is held that their evidence is not believable and trustworthy.

15.PW.5 who is said to be eye witness of the incident, he deposed that he heard some cries outside of the church, then he went and observed that there was a dispute between the PW.1 and accused, again he went inside the church and started prayers. The evidence of PW.5 shows that PW.5 doesn’t say anything against the accused and moreover the evidence of

PW.5 does not prove and establish that the accused beat PW.1 and insulted her modesty. Since PW.5 did not state anything against the accused, as such it is held that the evidence of PW.5 is no way helpful to prove the guilt of the accused.

16.As can be seen from the evidence of PW.6, he deposed that after hearing the cries, he went outside of the church and observed that the 7 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

accused and her daughters tried to push PW.1. PW.1 never stated as the daughters of accused pushed her. It shows that the evidence of PW.6 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW.1, as such the evidence of PW.6 is not believable and trustworthy.

17.PW.7 is only an investigation officer, since she is not a direct eye witness of the alleged incident as such her evidence is also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged offence was taken place on 23.03.2023, but

Ex.P1 report was presented on 03.04.2023, which is after 10 days of the alleged offence. The prosecution did not explain anything about causing of delay to present Ex.P1 report. The non-explanation of delay of 10 days to present Ex.P1 report by the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with her own report, as such her evidence is not believable. On consideration of entire oral evidence adduced by prosecution, there is no iota of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In the absence of any evidence the contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted. Hence it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable 8 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

under sections 323, 509 of IPC. As such accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly point is answered.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 509 of IPC and she is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The

bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437 (A) of code of

criminal procedure and shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal

period.

Dictated to Typist, directly typed on my computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 7th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Ziauddin Shaik.

Principal Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence

PW.1: S.Dhana Lakshmi - None –

PW.2: D.Yesupadam

PW.3: Sirra Koteswara Rao

PW.4: K.Venkanna

PW.5: B.Peda Bujji

PW.6: S.Kumar 9 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

PW.7: Y.Naga Lakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report, dt. 03.04.2023

Ex.P2: First Information Report, dt. 03.04.2023

Ex.P3: Rough sketch., dt. 03.04.2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

Sd/-Ziauddin Shaik.

Principal Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Palakol .

10 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

PALAKOL

C.C.No.135/2023

Date of Sentence Arrest of theCommencementClose of OffenceComplaintor accusedof trialtrial order Issued 41-A 22-07-07-08- 23-03-202303-04-2023of CrPC21-02-2025 20252025 notice

Name of the Complainant The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru Police Station.

Name of the accused

Sirra Santhi Sudha, W/o Gannayya Sastry, age. 31 years, Pappu Gunta, H/o Jagannadhapuram Village, Poduru Mandal.

Offence: Under Sections 323, 509 of IPC

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 509 of IPC and she is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The

bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437 (A) of code of

criminal procedure and shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal

period.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: No delay.

Sd/-Ziauddin Shaik.

Principal Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Palakol 11 APWG110004102023

PJFCM, PKL. CC No.135/2023

Dt. 07.08.2025.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

page 1 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

In the Court of PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS CUM P.C.J(JD)

PALAKOL.

Present: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK Prl.Judl. I-Class Magistrate/Prl.Civil Judge(JD) Palakol.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of August,2025.

CC No.46/2025

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Palakol.

….. Complainant

And

Relli Suresh, S/o.Kama Raju, Age. 32 years, R/o.Bradipeta, Palakol Town, Poduru Mandal,West Godavari District.

….. Accused

This case is presented on 01-08-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.P.Purna Ravi Chandra,learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence punishable under Section 8 (d) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

page 2 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

On 30.11.2020 at about 12:00 Noon, the LW.1/S.Rambabu, Sub

Inspector of SEB,Task Force, Bhimavaram arrested the accused while he was in illegal possession of liquor bottles each contains about 90 ml and two plastic glasses with liquor smell. They are two bottles of (1) One bottle of

Kings Well Select Brandy 180 ml size bottle with 90 ml loose liqour and (2)

One Malabar House VSOP brandy 180 ml size bottle with 90 ml loose liquor with a view to sell the same to the general public with high rates and he seized the same and registered as FIR in Cr.No.250/2020 under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act and took up investigation. He sent the samples for chemical analysis and received report. Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice was served on the accused. The LW.1/S.Rambabu, Sub Inspector of

SEB,Task Force, Bhimavaram handed over the Special report along with case property and accused to the Station House Office, SEB, Station,

Palakol. After completion of investigation, L.W.4/S.I of Prohibition & Excise

Station, Palakol filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act against the accused.

page 3 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the charge under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and relied on Exs.P1 to P3 and MOs.1 and 2. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of LW.2/R.J.Satish, Inspector,SEB Task Force,

Bhimavaram and L.W.3/K.Surendra, Head Constable, SEB Task Force,

Bhimavaram.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of page 4 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.The point that falls for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 8 (d) of APP(Amendment) Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

9.Heard both the sides.

POINT:

10. Now to prove the offence under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition

Amendment Act the prosecution must prove that PW.3 found the accused in possession of liquor bottles without any license which is prohibited under the

Act.

11.At the outset, it is the case of the prosecution that, PW.1 and their staff found the accused in possession of IML bottles.

12. Now to prove the offence Under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition

Amendment Act, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is relevant. To substantiate its page 5 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025 case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3. PW.1, who is police official deposed that on 30-11-2020 at 12.00 Noon, on information, PW.1 along with his staff went to Palakol and on seeing, the accused tried to skulk away. On verification, they found 02 liquor bottles i.e., of (1) One bottle of Kings Well

Select Brandy 180 ml size bottle with 90 ml loose liqour and (2) One Malabar

House VSOP brandy 180 ml size bottle with 90 ml loose liquor, therefore the same were seized and the accused was arrested under the cover of special report and he was taken to the police station.

13.PW.3/SI of Police, he also deposed in the same lines as deposed by

PW.1. Further the P.W.2/Sub Inspector of Police, he deposed that, he received entire record from P.W.1 and found correct and filed charge sheet against the accused. On perusal of entire evidence, PWs.1 to 3 admittedly they are police officials, so Ex.P1 which was recorded by PW.1 who is a police officer cannot be believed as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So when PW.1 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the seizure of contraband from accused was made by a police officer as per the procedure prescribed under law.

page 6 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

14. In his cross examination PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. PW.1 never issued any notice to secure mediators. He did not secure any independent witnesses for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, no written summons were given to any independent witness to act as mediators. So the evidence of PW.1 shows that he did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7)

Code of Criminal Procedure shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So the evidence of PW.2 shows that the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4), (5) and (7) Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed by PW.1 while seizing the contraband from him. So under the above circumstances the page 7 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025 evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as they failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 100 (4) (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution as to whether really PW.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him, as he is only police officer and when PW.1 did not secure any independent witnesses though available near the scene of offence.

15. Hence, it is held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as PW.1 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of PW.1 is held to be not trustworthy and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition

Amendment Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

page 8 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

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

punishable under Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act and

he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for

the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437-

A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1 and

2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Dictated to personal assistant, directly typed on my computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 06th day of August,2025.

Sd/- ziauddin shaik

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class/

Cum Prl.Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Palakol.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence PW.1: J.Ram Prakash -None- PW.2: P.Mahesh. PW.3: S.Rambabu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Special report, dt.30.11.2020. Ex.P2: First Information Report dt. 30.11.2020. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report dt. 30.11.2020.

Defence -Nil-

Material Objects: Mos.1 and 2: Sample bottles.

Sd/- ziauddin shaik

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Cum Prl.Civil Judge(Jr.Division) Palakol.

page 9 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF PRL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL.

CC No.46/2025

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest of theCommence-Close of trialSentence accusedment of trialor order 30.11.2020 30.11.202041(A)11-07-202518-07-202506-08-2025 Cr.P.C notice.

Name of the Complainant The State represented by Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Palakol.

Name of the accused

Relli Suresh, S/o.Kama Raju, Age. 32 years, R/o.Bradipeta, Palakol Town, Poduru Mandal,West Godavari District.

Offence: Section 8(d) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

Finding: “Found not guilty”.

Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 (d) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Explanation for delay: No delay.

Sd/- ziauddin shaik

page 10 Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, PKL. CC No.46/2025 Dt.6-8-2025. APWG110000932025

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class/ Cum Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Palakol. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Eluru,West Godavari District.

page 1 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025.

In the Court of Principal Judicial I Class Magistrate Cum Principal Civil

Judge(Jr Division)Palakol

Present: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK Prl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class cum PCJ(JD), Palakol. Tuesday, this the 5th day of August, 2025.

CC No.33/2025

Between :

State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru Police Station,Poduru.

…Complainant

And

Bonthu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Mohan Rao, Age.43 years, R/o. Kummara Street, Kavitam Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District. …Accused.

This case is presented on 29-07-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri M.Syamala, learned Counsel for accused in open Court, and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Poduru Police Station, Poduru filed charge- sheet against the accused in Cr.No.01/2025 of their Police Station for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

page 2 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows :

On 13-01-2025 at 9:30 pm, then L.W.4/K.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police,

Poduru Police Station with the assistance of L.Ws.2 and 3/K.Prasad, Police

Constable, Poduru P.S. and S.Prasada Rao, Police Constable, Poduru P.S and his staff Kummari Street, Kavitam Village, Poduru Mandal, they found one person and on seeing them he tried to escape at that place but on suspicious L.W.4/K.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police, Poduru Police Station detained the person with the assistance of his staff and on enquiry,

L.W.4/K.Sudhakar Reddy, SI of Police, Poduru Police Station found (1) 5 bottles of Shot Whiskey (180 ml) and (2) 4 bottles of HD Deluxe whisky (180 ml) bottles i.e., SNJ’s Lion whiskey of 180ml bottles, the accused disclosed his identity, based on mediator report, he registered a case in Cr.No.1/2025 u/s. 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, investigated into and laid charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s. 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, against the accused.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

page 3 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the charge under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and relied on Exs.P1 to P5 and MOs.1 and 2. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.2/K.Prasad, Police Constable, Poduru Police Station,

Poduru.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.The point that falls for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offence punishable under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra

page 4 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025. Pradesh Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Heard both the sides.

POINT:

10. Now to prove the offence under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act, the prosecution must prove that PW.3 found the accused in possession of liquor bottles without any license which is prohibited under the Act.

11.At the outset, it is the case of the prosecution that, PW.3 and their staff found the accused in possession of IML bottles.

12. Now to prove the offence Under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are relevant. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3. PW.3, who is police official deposed that on 13-01-2025 at about 9:30 am, they found the accused in possession of (1) 5 bottles of Shot Whiskey (180 ml) and (2) 4 bottles of HD

Deluxe whisky (180 ml) bottles i.e., SNJ’s Lion whiskey of 180ml bottles therefore the same were seized and the accused was arrested under the cover of Occurrence report and he was taken to the police station.

13.PW.2/Police Constable, Poduru P.S, he also deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW.1. Further the P.W.1/Police Constable, he deposed page 5 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025. that, he do not anything about this case and he was not examined by the police and he was turned hostile and his evidence not support the case of the prosecution. On perusal of entire evidence, PWs.2 and 3 admittedly they are police officials, so Ex.P1 which was recorded by PW.3 who is a police officer cannot be believed as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So when PW.3 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the seizure of contraband from accused was made by a police officer as per the procedure prescribed under law.

14. In his cross examination PW.3 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. PW.1 never issued any notice to secure mediators. He did not secure any independent witnesses for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, no written summons were given to any independent witness to act as mediators. So the evidence of PW.3 shows that he did not follow the procedure prescribed under

Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) Code of

Criminal Procedure shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be page 6 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025. given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So the evidence of

PW.2 shows that the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4), (5) and (7)

Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed by PW.1 while seizing the contraband from him. So under the above circumstances the evidence of

PW.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as they failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 100 (4) (5) and (7) of code of Criminal

Procedure. Hence, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution as to whether really PW.3 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from him, as he is only police officer and when PW.3 did not secure any independent witnesses though available near the scene of offence.

15. Hence, it is held that the evidence of PW.3 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as PW.2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from her. So, when the evidence of PW.2 is held to be not trustworthy and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

page 7 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,

and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure

for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section

437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1

and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Dictated to personal assistant, directly typed on my computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 05th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- ziauddin shaik

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Jr.Division), Palakol

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence PW.1 : T.Suresh Babu Nil

PW.2 : S.Prasada Rao

P.W.3 : K.Sudhakar Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P2: Occurrence report, dt.13.01.2025.

Ex.P3: First Information Report dt. 13.01.2025

Ex.P4: Chemical analysis report dt. 13.01.2025

Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch, dt. 13-01-2025.

Defence-Nil-

Material Objects:

MOs.1 and 2: Sample bottles.

Sd/- ziauddin shaik

PJMFC (JD), PKL.

page 8 PJFCM,Court, PKL. CC No.33/2025 Dt.5-08-2025.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL.

CC No.33/2025

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest of theCommence-Close of trialSentence or accusedment of trialorder 13-01-202513-01-2025Sec.41-A03-06-202511-07-202505-08-2025 Cr.PC notice given

Name of the Complainant State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru Police Station,Poduru.

... Complainant

Accused

BonthuSrinivasa Rao, S/o. Mohan Rao, Age.43 years, R/o. Kummara Street, Kavitam Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District.

Offence: Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Finding: “Found not guilty”.

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

punishable under Section 34(A) r/w 34(1) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,

and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure

for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section

437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1

and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Explanation for delay: No delay. Sd/- ziauddin shaik Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Jr.Division), Palakol

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, W.G.District, Eluru.

1

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

PALAKOL

Present: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class cum PCJ (JD),PKL FAC/ Addl.Judl. I Class Magistrate cum ACJ (JD), PKL

Friday, this the 19th day of July, 2024

CC No.89/2024

Between: The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Palakol Town PS.

….. Complainant

and

Pataballa Hari S/o. Rangarao age. 32 years,

D.No. 133-3 Sabbevaripeta, Palakol. ….. Accused

This case is presented on 12.7.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.B.S.R Murthy learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G E M E N T:-

1. The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Amendment Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 17-2-2024 at about 6.30 pm, LW.8/B.Srinivas/Sub-Inspector of

Police, Palakol Town PS arrested the accused while he was in illegal possession of brandy and whiskey i.e, HD Ultra deluxe whiskey of 180ml-5 each bottle Rs.130/- and (2) King Louis XIV 180ml-1(opened) total six bottles with a view to sell the same to the general public with high rates and he 2

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

seized the same and registered as FIR in Cr.No.71/2024 under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and took up investigation. He sent the samples for chemical analysis and received report. Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice was served on the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the charge under Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 7 and relied on Exs.P1 to P10 and MOs.1 and 2. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of Lws.5/PC 847 of Palakol Town PS.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

3

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

8. The point that falls for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

9. Heard both the sides.

POINT:

10. Now to prove the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act the prosecution must prove that PW.6 found the accused in possession of liquor bottles without any license which is prohibited under the Act.

11. At the outset, it is the case of the prosecution that, PW.6 and their staff found the accused in possession of IML bottles.

12. Now to prove the offence Under Section 34 (A) of A.P Excise Act, the evidence of Pws.5 to 7 are relevant. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 5 to 7 who are police official deposed that on 17-2-2024 at 6-30 pm on credible information PW6 along with other staff went to near

FCI godown, Sabbevaripeta, Palakol, on seeing, the accused tried to escape in possession of card board box which contains HD Ultra Deluxe whiskey -5 bottles and one bottle of King Luious-1 total six bottles of liquor, therefore the same were seized and the accused was arrested under the cover of occurrence report and he was taken to the police station. Pws 1 to 4 who are said to be eye witnesses they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW5 deposed as that on 17-2-2024 at 6.30 pm on credible information, he accompanied with PW6 along with other staff went to near

FCI godown Sabbevaripeta, Palakol and found accused in possession of liquor bottles total six in number and he seized the same and arrested the accused under cover of special report.

4

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

13. On perusal of entire evidence, PW.5 to 7 admittedly they are police officials, so Ex.P5/occurrence report which was prepared by PW.6 who is a police officer cannot be believed as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So when PW6 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the seizure of contraband from accused was made by a police officer as per the procedure prescribed under law.

14. In his cross examination PW.6 admitted that he did not secure any independent witnesses for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused. As seen from the evidence of PW6., no written summons were given to any independent witness to act as mediators. So the evidence of

PW.6 shows that he did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7)

Code of Criminal Procedure shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So the evidence of PW.6 shows that the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4), (5) and (7) Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed by PW.6 while seizing the contraband from him. So under the above circumstances the evidence of PW.6 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as they failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 100 (4) (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it creates a reasonable doubt over the 5

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

case of prosecution as to whether really PW.6 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from her, as he is only police officer and when PW6 did not secure any independent witnesses though available near the scene of offence.

15. Hence, it is held that the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as Pws.5 to 7 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from her. So, when the evidence of PW.6 is held to be not trustworthy and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under

Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

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

punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and he is acquitted

under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said

offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1 and 2

shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Dictated to personal assistant, directly typed on my computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 19th day of July, 2024.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol. FAC: I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Palakol.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

6

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1: Ch.Mohana Rao …NIL… P.W.2 : G.Narasimha Swamy PW3 : B.Vasu PW4 : M.Trinadh PW.5: M.Subrahmanyam PW.6 : B.Srinivas PW.7: A.V.Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3 dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4 dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P5 : Occrrence Report dt. 17-2-2024

Ex.P6 : FIR dt. 17-2-2024

Ex.P7 : Letter of advice dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P8 : Chemical analysis report. dt. 20-3-2024

Ex.P9 : Rough sketch, dt.17.2.2024

Ex.P10 : Destruction proceedings dt.8-4-2024.

Defence -Nil-

Material Objects:

MOs.1 and 2 : two Sample bottles.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol. FAC: I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Palakol.

7

AJFCM Court, PKL. CC No.89/2024 Dt.19-7-2024.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

THE COURT OF PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS CUM PCJ(JD),

PALAKOL

FAC/ ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL.

CC No.89/2024

Date of OffenceComplaintArrest of the Commence- Close of Sentence or accusedment of trialtrialorder 17-2-2024 17-2-2024 41(A) 4-7-202412-7-202419-7-2024 Cr.P.C notice.

Name of the Complainant

The State : Sub Inspector of Police, SEB, Palakol

….. Complainant

and

Pataballa Hari S/o. Rangarao age. 32 years, D.No. 133-3 Sabbevaripeta, Palakol.

….. Accused

Offence: Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act.

Finding: “Found not guilty”.

Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused be used as per Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be cancelled and MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. Explanation for delay: No delay

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol. FAC: I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Palakol. Copy submitted to: