Dismissed

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, v. the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2019CRLRC/242/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision against conviction and imprisonment for violating prohibition laws. The court held that discrepancies in police witness testimony were minor and did not warrant interference with the trial court's finding of guilt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; miscellaneous applications pending shall stand closed.

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, Vs the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.242 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is preferred by the appellants/A1 and A2 against the judgment, dated 24.10.2006, passed in Crl.A.No.299 of 2002, on the file of the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby the said court dismissed the appeal and sentenced the appellants to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, by modifying the sentence imposed in the judgment, dated 31.10.2002, passed in C.C.No.52 of 2002, on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prodatur, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer imprisonment for three months.

¶5

The facts of the case briefly are that while the Prohibition and Excise Police were conducting raids on 23.05.2002 in the hillock area of Ganjikunta Sugali Thanda, they found A1 preparing implements, A2 stirring the FJ wash in the drum. When they tried to escape they were caught and interrogated. Sample was drawn for the purpose of chemical examination under special proceedings and was sent for examination of the expert. The expert opined that the sample was

¶6

¶7

meant for distillation. Thereby, the accused were arrested and charge sheet was filed.

¶8

After complying with all the legal formalities, the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, (hereinafter referred to as, “trial court”), framed charge under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of the A.P.Excise Act.. The charges were read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty. The trial court, on behalf of the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. After examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the court passed the judgment convicting the appellants as aforementioned. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred appeal viz., Crl.A.No.299 of 2002, before the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, (hereinafter referred to as, “first appellate court”) in which the impugned judgment came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the appellants.

¶9

The grounds on which the revision is preferred are that the courts below failed to see that prosecution has miserably failed to make out its case beyond all reasonable doubt; that the courts below ought to have rejected the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2, who are the police officials as the same was not corroborating each other; that the courts below failed to give any weight to the statement of the accused when he was examined under Section 313 CrPC.

¶10

¶11

The counsel for the appellant is called absent on 31.07.2019 and the matter was posted to 07.08.2019, ‘for orders’. Today also, as there was no representation for the appellant, this matter is being disposed of on merits. Heard the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶12

Based on the above grounds, the following points arise for consideration:

¶13

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 34 (A) of the A.P. Excise Act.

¶14

To what result.

¶15

POINT No.1:-

¶16

PW1 is the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proddatur. PW2 is the Prohibition and Excise Head constable, Proddatur. Both of them stated that on 23.05.2007 at about 03:00 PM while they, along with their staff, were conducting raids and when they reached Ganjikunta Sugali Thanda in the hillock area, they found A1 and A2 stirring in the iron drums with their right hands. PW2 stated that A1 was arranging ID still and A2 was stirring FJ Wash in the drum.

¶17

The discrepancy in the evidence of PW2, who stated that A1 is arranging ID still, was discussed by the lower court by observing that there is no contradiction about the presence of A1 and A2 at the scene of offence. No panchas were available.

¶18

¶19

Though there is no other evidence other than the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the courts below did not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. There is also evidence that PW1 drew some quantity of FJ wash from all the iron drums into MO1 sample bottle and hence, there was only one sample bottle.

¶20

The discrepancies that were pointed out by the defence counsel were not considered as fatal to the case of the prosecution and were brushed aside as minor discrepancies. Though PWs.1 and 2 are Excise Officials, there need not be any reason to disbelieve their evidence simply on that ground. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded the conviction, which in the considered opinion of this court needs no interference.

¶21

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶22

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶23

_____________ T. RAJANI, J

¶24

August 8, 2019 LMV

¶25

¶26

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶27

¶28

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.242 OF 2007

¶29

August 8, 2019

¶30

LMV

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, v. the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, v. the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Appala Raju Vs Mylapalli Tata Rao

Sri Kakarla Rajendra Prasad Vs The Authorized Officer [Land Reforms]

Konda Bhavani Sankar Lingam Vs Nalluri Uma Pallavi

M. Sivasankar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Poluru Rajnikanth , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Grandhi Subrahmanyam Vs Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy