The High Court considered a criminal revision against conviction for unlawful possession of 350 liters of kerosene. The court found no error in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence regarding the seizure and lack of license and dismissed the revision.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; conviction and sentence 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUS1TICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1332 OF 2007 Dated 21-8-2014
Between:
Dulala Govindu @ Venkateswarlu.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its . Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1332 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 26-9-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur whereunder judgment dated 30-1-2006 in C.C.No.406 of 2004 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: On 8-4-2004 at about 11 A.M., while P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and mediators raided kerosene shop of A.2 along with others, A.1 was found present doing business and he was in possession of 350 Lts. Of PDS kerosene meant for public distribution and the same was seized and handed over to P.W.3 and the accused was produced before the Pedakakani Police Station with report and after registering F.I.R. he was sent for remand and investigation revealed that A.1 and A.2 are liable for punishment under Section 3(1) (3) of A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 and Clause 3(1) of Kerosene Orders, 1990 read with Sections 7 and 8 of E.C.Act, 1955.
On these allegations, five witnesses are examined and four documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found A.2 not guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(3) of A.P. Petroleum Products order read with 7 and 8 of E.C.Act and acquitted him for the said charges and found A.1 guilty for the said charges and sentenced him to suffer three months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Guntur and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred by revision petitioner herein-A.1. Heard both sides.
Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that the courts below grossly erred in applying the ingredients of Sec.3(1)(3) of A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980 read with Sections 7 and 8 of E.C.Act and that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence and place of seizure and possession of alleged quantity of kerosene and that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the case of prosecution witnesses and that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court after considering evidence of prosecution witnesses found that charges levelled against the petitioner are duly proved and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments
of the courts below are legal, correct and proper? POINT:
According to prosecution, on 8-4-2004 at about 11 A.M., while P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 raided kerosene shop of A.2 along with others, A.1 who is revision petitioner herein was found doing business and he was in possession of 350 Lts., of PDS Kerosene meant for public distribution and the same was seized and handed over to P.W.3 and the accused was arrested.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and prosecution failed to establish the alleged place of occurrence and place of seizure and possession of alleged quantity of kerosene and that there are grave inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
As seen from the record, P.W.1-Circle Inspector in his evidence deposed that on 8-4-2004, he along with P.W.2, P.W.5 and mediators proceeded to the scene of offence and found A.1 selling kerosene without licence and permit. He further deposed that during search, they found kerosene in two drums total of which is 350 litres and empty drums 32 in number, and they were seized.
P.W.2 Deputy Tahsildar, who acted as mediator, deposed that on the date of incident, he accompanied to the place of incident and found A.1 selling kerosene and police arrested him and seized two drums of blue kerosene about 350 litres and he attested Ex.P.1 Mahazarnama.
P.W.3 who is another mediator supported seizure of blue kerosene etc.,
Here, the person who was found in possession of 350 Lts., blue kerosene is not having any licence and when A.1 is not having any licence, he cannot be termed as a dealer, but it should be accepted that the product found in his possession is meant for sale and
as such, he is liable for punishment under Section 7 of E.C.Act as he contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Both trial court and appellate court have considered these aspects, and convicting A.1.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. On a scrutiny of evidence on record, I am of the view that trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution and I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of trial court or appellate court.
For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
Dated 21-8-2014. Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1332 OF 2007 Dated 21-8-2014
Dvs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgments of courts below are legal, correct and proper concerning A.1's possession of PDS kerosene without a license?
Whether the prosecution successfully established elements of the offence and established that A.1 was falsely implicated?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dulala Govindu @ Venkateswarlu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
