Court confirmed conviction under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act but reduced sentence to period already undergone by accused, confirming the fine.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1134 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 against the judgment, dated 26.6.2006 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, in Crl.A.No.44 of 2006.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
On 29.5.1999, the Excise Officials of Sub-Divisional Task Force, Miryalguda and Excise Officials of Huzurnagar on information proceeded to Gaddipally village at about 1.45 p.m., and secured the presence of panch witnesses and went to the house of A1. At that time, A1 was present in his house. After serving a search memo, a search was conducted and six cartons of liquor were found. On examination of six cartons, 48 nip bottles in each of five cartons and 38 nip bottles in the sixth carton were found. All the contraband bottles contained labels as distilled, blended and bottled by pearl distilleries limited, old Singarayakonda, Prakasam District, A.P., for sale to APBCL (AP) only. Those labels contained information that those bottles contained Kerala Malt Whisky. On enquiry, A1 confessed that he has stocked those bottles for sale to public and those bottles were supplied by A2. After following necessary formalities, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the SHO of Prohibition and Excise of Huzurnagar before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as C.C.No.52 of 2003 and after following the procedure, he framed charge under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act against the accused, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked on behalf of the
prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
4. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused No.1 alone guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and hence, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, while acquitting A2 for the said charge. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed an appeal viz., Crl.A.No.44 of 2006 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalguda. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Challenging the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed the present revision.
5. Heard and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that it is not a fit case for interference, but in view of the fact that the petitioneraccused No.1 was in prison for a considerable period, a lenient view may be taken.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused No.1 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. But however, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the nature of the offence, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below under the above head. 8. In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused No.1 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act is confirmed. But however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is reduced to the period,
which the petitioner-A1 has already undergone, while confirming the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this revision, stand closed.
_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J
Dated: 2nd July, 2013 Nn
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1134 of 2006
2.07.2013
Nn
PETITIONER-ACCUSED No.1
STATE
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
