Partly allowed

Puvvada Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC16 Nov 2012CRLRC/1245/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Case No.1245 of 2005, Justice Raja Elango considered the petitioner's appeal against a sentence of transportation of liquor without a license. The court noted the crime occurred in 1995 and the petitioner suffered stigma for years. Upon hearing only arguments regarding the sentence, the court set aside imprisonment but confirmed the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment set aside; fine of Rs.20,000 confirmed; conviction confirmed.

Puvvada Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1245 OF 2005

¶2

DATED 16^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

P.Venkateswara Rao

¶5

.. Petitioner-accused

and

State of A.P.

..Respondent

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1245 OF 2005

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Petitioner-accused filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.07.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2004 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad.

¶12

Allegations levelled against the petitioner, in brief, are of transportation of 35 bottles of Old Tavern Whisky of 750 ml on scooter bearing No.AP-25-B-704 in a gunny bag from State of Maharastra to Nizamabad without any valid license on 15.10.1995.

¶13

After registering the case in COR No.39/95-96 the Excise officials investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet for an offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, cognizance of which was taken in C.C.No.742 of 1997 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Cases, Nizamabad.

¶14

A charge under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against the petitioner, to which he denied the offence. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. After appreciating the entire oral and

¶15

documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 31.12.2003 convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the charge proved against him.

¶16

When the petitioner herein challenged the judgment of the trial Court by preferring Crl.A.No.4 of 2004, the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. Aggrieved over the same, present revision has been preferred.

¶17

After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only to the extent of imposition of sentence and prayed the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner in imposition of sentence of imprisonment.

¶18

In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that the merits of the impugned judgment need not be appraised in this revision.

¶19

Taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the crime is registered in the year 1995 and for all these years the petitioner herein is suffering humiliation and also stigma in the society, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner can be set aside while confirming the fine amount imposed on him.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of imprisonment is hereby set aside and the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- imposed on the petitioner is hereby confirmed.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶23

Date : 16.11.2012 sur

Puvvada Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puvvada Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polubothu Ravi Sankar Vs State of A.P.

Alimili Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Neelakhanta Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs Smt. B. Vimala

Naguluru Sriramulu, Vs Kogili Sugunamma, (A-2)

Yalavarthi Murali Krishna Vs Sri Shaik Khaji Babu

Mohd. Yousuf Ali , Mental Yousuf , (A-3) Jawan Yousuf Vs State of A.P. rep. by P.P.