Partly allowed

Katta Venkata Ramana, Attili [M], W.G.Dist., A.P. v. the State of a.P., Reptd. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023CRLRC/636/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice V. Srinivas allowed a criminal revision to commute the petitioner's six-month rigorous imprisonment sentence. The Court invoked Section 11.B of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 433 Cr.P.C., considering the petitioner's age, blindness, and the time lapsed, to reduce the sentence to the period already served.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Katta Venkata Ramana, Attili [M], W.G.Dist., A.P. Vs… — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 636 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Katta Venkata Ramana, S/o. Subba Rao, Settibalija R/o. Kattavaripalem Attili Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

S® ' Represented by its Prohibition & Excise Station,^Bhimavaram West Godavari District, A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the sentence on conviction passed in C.C. No.429/2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram dt. 05-08-2008 and confirming the same CrI A No 167 / 2008, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram dt. 10-02f A sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 8(b) fuAct for a period of six months regess imprisonment^submits this Memorandum of Revision.

¶13

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010fCRLRCMP. NO: 963 OF 20101

¶14

QtatoH under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be sentence and judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 / 2008, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) the judgment and sentence in C.C. No. 429 / dt. n?°nR°9nn«® h Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram Honoumble Cour^^^^^ ^ this

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.636 of 2010

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Assailing the judgment dated 10.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.l67 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned 111 Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Bhimavaram, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 05.08.2008 in C.C.No.429 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned 11 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, for the charge under section 8(b) Andhra Pradesh Prohibition^and Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as A.P.P&E.Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case was admitted on 29.03.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner^was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.936 of 2010. 3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.l88 of 2005-2006 of Bhimavaram Excise Police Station and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet^and the same was numbered as C.C.No.429 of 2005 on the file of the

¶22

¶23

Court of learned II Additional Judieial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram and when the matter was at the stage of examination under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused admitted the charge leveled against him and thereby, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 8(b) A.P.P&E.Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

¶24

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.l67 of 2008, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶25

Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

¶26

Heard N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶27

Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any flaw in the findings arrived by the first Appellate Court in confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner?”

¶28

¶29

Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not know the consequences^of stating before the Court as tutored by the police and pleaded guilty of the alleged offence; that the petitioner was not having advocate at the time of examination before the trial Court; that the petitioner is suffering from eye-problem and is the only person to look after his family.

¶30

He further submits that if in case this Court opines^that the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner on his admission of guilt, some lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence, as the offence said to have committed by the petitioner is compoundable in nature. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for^the respondent, submits that the trial Court as well first appellate Court followed the rule of law and rightly convicted^theaccused for the charge leveled against him. However, he further^submits that, in view of the amendment of A.P.P.Act, 2000, it is a compoundable offence and Court can commute the sentence under Section 1 l.B of A.P.P.Act. 11. In view of the above submissions, this Court perused^the material on record. In shorn, the case against the petitioner is that on 17.03.2006 at about 04.00 p.m., the Excise Officials

¶31

¶32

found the accused in possession of 5 liters of I D.liquor in a steel can near Gostani River Bridge, Vendra Agraharam Village and then seized the said contraband after collecting samples under the cover of special report and registered a case in Cr.No. 188/05-06 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.P.Act. 12. It is not in dispute that the accused voluntarily admitted the guilt of the charge leveled against him. The trial^Courtafter considering the plea made by the accused, rightly convicted^him and same was upheld by the first appellate Court. Now,^thereis nothing on record interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below.

¶33

However, this Court perused amended provisions of A.P.P.Act, under Section 1 l.B of the Act, which reads^asfollows:

¶34

“4. Insertion of new section IIB.- In the principal Act, after section 1 lA, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-

¶35

"Compounding of Offences: ll.B(l) The Collector or any Prohibition and Excise Officer specially empowered "in that behalf may accept from any person ??? is reasonably suspected of having committee ??? offence falling under clause (a) or sub-clause (i) of clause (b) or the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) it was is force, of section or ??? a sum of money as may be prescribed ??? not exceeding the maximum fine which can be

¶36

¶37

imposed for the of fence under the provisions of the Act, by way of compensation for the offence which may have been committed and in all cases in which any property has been seized as liable for confiscation under this Act, may release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer:

¶38

Provided that where the property so seized is a liquor produced or manufactured in contravention of this Act, such liquor shall not be released but shall be disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed:

¶39

Provided further, that such sum of money shall not^be accepted from any person who is reasonably, suspected of having committed an offence under sub-clause (i)^of clause (b) of section 8 without the prior approval^ofthe Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise.

¶40

(2) On the payment by the person the sum of money or the value or both, as the case may be, such person,^ifin custody shall be set at liberty, and all the property seized may be released and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such person in any Criminal Court. The acceptance of compensation shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal and in no case any farther proceedings be taken against such person or property with reference to the same Act.".

¶41

Herein this case, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months. However,^itshouldbe

¶42

¶43

keep in mind that almost fourteen (17) years have been lapsed from the date of offence. Furthermore, the petitioner already undergone sentence from 17.03.2006 to 21.03.2006, 05.08.2008 to 02.09.2008 and 10.02.2010 to 29.03.2010 (in total 81 days). More so, the petitioner is aged about 58 years and now is totally blind and not able to do any work, depending on his son and getting handicapped pension from July,^2019. 15. In this context, it is relevant to refer a judgment^ofthe HonlDle Supreme Court reported in Santosh Kumar V. Municipal Corporation^, wherein the APEX Court taken a view that “though there is a minimum sentence prescribed,^theCourt can commute the sentence in appropriate cases.”

¶44

In the present case, in view of the Section ll.B of the A.P.P.Act, the offence is compoundable in nature and in that way, having regard to the aforementioned reasons, this Court^is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to commute the sentence of imprisonment of six (6) months to that of period already undergone by the petitioner, in exercise of powers under Section 433 Cr.P.C.

¶45