Partly allowed

Bolishetty Parvathalu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Jul 2013CRLRC/1122/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court revised a conviction and sentence for contravention under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, admitting the petitioner had undergone substantial imprisonment and it being a lapsing of 14 years, reduced the imprisonment to the period undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; maintenance of fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed.

Bolishetty Parvathalu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.1122 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 26.06.2006, passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalguda in Crl.A.No.45 of 2006 confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar vide judgment dated 27.01.2006 in C.C.No.53 of 2003.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶6

On information, the Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Miryalguda, Nalgonda and Huzurnagar along with the staff and panchas proceeded to Mallaiahgudem on 29.05.1999 at about 11.30 AM, reached the house of A1, issued a search memo to A1, and on search of the house of A1, they found 34 cartons containing 48 nip bottles labeled as Kerala Malt Whisky, distilled, blended and bottled by Pearl Distilleries Limited, Old Singarayakonda, Prakasham District, meant for sale to A.P.B.C.L. only without any batch numbers and date of manufacturing. On demand, A1 failed to produce any valid permit or license to possess such I.M.L.stocks. At the time of raid, as A2 to A4 were trying to run away, the excise officials caught hold of A2 and A3, but A4 was escaped from the scene of offence. On enquiry, A1 disclosed that A2 and A4 have dumped the said cartons in his house with a promise to lift them after a few days. The excise officials seized all the cartons, sent the sample bottles to the

¶7

Chemical Examiner, who in turn after due analysis opined that the sample contains alcohol and it is Indian made liquor, thereby the accused contravened the provision of Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’). On completion of investigation, the excise officials filed the charge sheet.

¶8

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 35 were marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

¶9

4. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found A2 and A4 not guilty of the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act and discharged A3 from the case, but found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act and thereby convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Questioning the said conviction and the sentence, the petitioner/A1 filed Crl.A.No.45 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A1 filed the present revision.

¶10

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶11

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A1 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact

¶12

that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶13

7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-A1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 14 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below. The petitioner/A1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) apart from the fine already paid by him before the trial Court on or before 15.08.2013, in default he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶14

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶16

1^st July, 2013 sj

Bolishetty Parvathalu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolishetty Parvathalu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Garuthoti Anandarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Joga Nooka Raju , Donga Babu, Vs The State of A.P.

Pammidi Babu Rao, Vs Sadineni Venkateswarlu

S.v.Krishna Reddy, Vs State of A.P.

Kotha Uday Kumar, Vs The State through D.S.P.Cbcid Pcr Cell, Warangal

C. Ananda Swamy, Vs Baby Rajani