Allowed

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

Telangana HC15 Nov 2012CRLRC/1509/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Raja Elango set aside the conviction and sentence imposing a condition that the petitioner compound the offence within 15 days by applying to authorities for a fee of Rs.1,000/- and offers relief on the fine amount.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner directed to apply for compounding within 15 days and pay Rs.1,000/- fee.

Alimili Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1509 of 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This revision is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 9.8.2005 passed in Crl.A.No.18 of 2002 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore confirming the judgment dated 20.12.2001 passed in C.C.No.493 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri and reducing the sentence of imprisonment.

¶4

The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) and 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and also sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and one month respectively. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the appeal and the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment under first count alone to six months. Challenging the judgment in the appeal, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioner.

¶5

When this matter is taken up, while relying on the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.496, Revenue (Excise III) dated 25.7.2000 and contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is compoundable and therefore, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the authority concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this revision case is squarely

¶6

covered by an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1965 of 2002, dated 12.9.2006.

¶7

In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below are set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner shall approach the authorities concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file an application seeking to compound the offence and pay a compounding fee of Rs.1,000/-.

¶8

Inso far as the fine amount as ordered by the Courts below is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate application before the appropriate forum, if any amount of fine is paid.

¶9

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶10

_________________ Justice Raja Elango

¶11

Dated: 15.11.2012 Nn.

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

Crl.R.C. No.1509 of 2005

¶14

15.11.2012