APHC010440242008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.611 OF 2008 Between: The State of AP Rep. by its PP ...APPELLANT AND Nalla Apparao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: ……….. The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 29.06.2006 passed in CC No.259 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, whereby and whereunder the respondent herein/sole Accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), accordingly, acquitted 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 him of the said charge and further directed the State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tekkali to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation to the respondent herein /sole accused. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.01.2002, at about 17.15 hours, on reliable information, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tekkali, along with his staff, conducted raid at the abaft of the house of the accused, situated at Depillivanipeta village limits of Santhabommali Mandal, and found 10 litres of illicitly distilled liquor in five plastic cans. The accused confessed that he purchased the said liquor from an unknown person at Lakkivalasa village for selling the same at higher price. After drawing samples, the contraband was seized and accused was arrested under cover of a special report and a case was registered against the accused in PR No.310 of 2001-02 for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the Act. After completing the investigation and after receiving the chemical analysis report, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector filed charge sheet. 3. The charge sheet was taken on file as CC No.259 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 Kotabommali, for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Act. 4. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Act was framed against the accused, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were got marked, besides case property MO.1. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 7. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charge levelled against him and, accordingly, acquitted him, vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.2006, on the ground that 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 PR number noted in the FIR as 310/2001-02 did not tally with the PR No.310/2003-04 in the charge sheet, hence the entire evidence adduced in the present case is relevant and applicable to PR No.310/2003-04, but does not imply to PRNo.310/2001-02. The learned Magistrate further directed the State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tekkali to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation to the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, submits that mere change of year in the PR does not cause any prejudice to the accused and it does not amount to mislead the accused. According to him, the typographical mistake of PR number in the charge sheet can be rectified during the course of trial before judgment. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the PR number in the FIR did not tally with the PR number in the charge sheet. He emphasized that the learned Magistrate grossly erred in directing the State 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tekkali, to pay damages of Rs.1000/- to the accused. 10. Heard. Perused the record. 11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the FIR was registered against the accused in PR No.310/2001-02 for the offence under Section 7A of the Act, whereas the charge sheet was filed in PR No.310/2003-04. PR No.310/2001-02 noted in the FIR did not tally with the PR No.310/2003-04 noted in the charge sheet. Hence, a doubt arose whether the entire evidence adduced against the accused is relevant and applicable to PR No.310/2003-04 or to PR No.310/2001-02. Attributing the case facts in the charge sheet contains PR No.310/2003-04 to the case facts of PR No.310/2001-02, would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the accused. In the circumstances, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The significant aspect in this case is that the change of PR number would certainly metamorphose the entire facts, circumstances, material ingredients as well as apprehension of committing the alleged offence by the accused, which is a fatal to the entire prosecution case. Not mentioning appropriate PR number while filing the 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 charge sheet indicates the gross negligence on the part of the prosecution. 12. Taking all the said aspects into consideration, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against him and acquitted him from the same. Further, since the prosecution conducted the trial against the accused in a malicious way and with all negligence, the learned Magistrate directed the State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tekkali to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation to the accused and I see no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 29.06.2006 passed in CC No.259 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:21.03.2025. Nsr 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.611 of 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2008 Dated:21.03.2025 Nsr