Partly allowed

Ragir Narasimha v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRLRC/1121/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in a criminal revision, affirmed the conviction of the accused for transporting toddy without Chloral under the A.P. Excise Act. While rejecting the plea for a fresh opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as the accused had sufficient earlier chances to defend, the Court reduced the sentence from four months to one month and imposed a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from four months rigorous imprisonment to one month with a fine of Rs. 25,000.

Ragir Narasimha Vs the State of A.P. — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1121 OF 2009

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C Against the Judgment daled 07-O7-2009^passed in Crl.Appeal No.300 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. by confirming the Judgment dated 28-08-2008 in C.C.No.4'19 of 20O5,^passed by the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offence U/s. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and acquil the revision^petitioner from all the charges leveled against the revision petitioner in the interest of^justice.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ragir Narasimha, S/o. Yadagiri, R/o. Kapralpally Village, Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...Revision Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh., Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. RAM BABU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT.IUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRL.R.C.No . 1\21 of 2009

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.3OO of 2008, clated 07.07.2009, confirming the conviction and senterlcc of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act imposed against the revision petitioner/accused bv the. learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistra te, Scc u rrd erabad, in C.C.No.419 of 2005 dated 28.08.2008

¶19

2 It is the case of the prosecution ti.rat orr 11.11.2004 on reliable information, P.W.2-Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector procured panch witrresscs inclucling P.W.1 ancl proceeded to the road opposite to N{ilitar1, Hospital, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, ancl that at about 6.00 A.M they found the accused conring on a Scooter bc,aring

¶20

¶21

No.A.P-28A-3959^{from AOC side and on verificationand} search of^{his Scooter,they found 105 litres of toddy in three} plastic cans and^{that it was found to be free from Chloral} Hydrate and^{that P.W.2had drawn two samplesfrom the} contraband^{and seized the samplesand the vehicle and that} the accused^{was arrestecl.The GovernmentChemical} Examiner for^{Excise after analysis of one of the samples} opined that it^{was fermented toddy free from Chloral} Hydrate and^DiazePam.

¶22

A Charge^{underSection 34 (a) of A'P' Excise Act was} framed against^{the accusedand he pleaded not guiltyand} claimed to be^{tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its} case against^{the accused, examined P'Ws'1 to 3 and got} marked Exs.P1 to^{P3. Neither oral nor documentary} evidence was^{adduced on behalf of the accused'}

¶23

On a perusal^{of the entire evidence,both oral and} documentary, the trial^{Court found the revision} petitioner/accused guilty^{of the offence punishable under}

¶24

¶25

¶26

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the said offence

¶27

In an appeal preferred by the revision

¶28

petitioner/accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Iudge, Hyderabad, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision, inter alia, contending that thc appellate Court failed to consider the petition filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in^proper perspective and recorded the findings in^{a mechanical way} by dismissing the petition. The^{appellateCourt oughtto} have given an opportunity to the^revision petitioner/ accused for cross-examittation of P.Ws.1^to 3 and as such the appellate Court erred in convictir.rg the revision

¶29

¶30

¶31

petitioner/accused basing on^{the prosecution evidence,} which caused much^{preiudice to the accused. Therefore,he} requested this Court to^{remand the matter to the trial Court} by giving an opportuniry to^{the revision petitioner/accused} to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3.

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the entire^material available on record.

¶33

P.W.1 is the panch witness, P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.3 is the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, who registered the case agairrst the accused. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 would disclose that on 11,.1L.2004 he found tfuee plastic cans containing 105 litres of toddy from the possession of the accused while he was coming on a ftooter bearing No.A.P-28A-3959 from AOC side opposite to Military hospital. Trimulgherry and then he secured the presence of two mcdiators and seized the toddy and Scooter under Ex.P1-Seizure Panchanama and also drawn two samples from the sgized toddy for analysis. The

¶34

¶35

evidence of P.W.2^{was not shaken in the cross-examination} with regard to the^{seizure of toddyunder cover of Ex'P1'} P.W.1, who is^{the panch witness} Present^{along with P'W'2} also supported^{the evidence of P'W'2 He stated that the} Excise officials^{seized three cans of toddy and Scooter from} the possession^{of the accusedunder cover of Ex'P1-Seizure} Panchanama and^{that he signed on Ex'P1'P'W'1 also} identifiedtheaccusedandstatedthathewasdrivingthe Scooter on the^{date of incident' However'P W 1 was not} cross-examined^{by the Counsel for the accused and hence} iris cross-examination^{was recorded as Nil' Therefore'the} evideuce of P.Ws.1^{and' 2 is consistentin all material} aspects. According^{to the evidence of P'W'3, he arrestedthc} accused and^{sent him for remandand thereafter he seizecl} the case property^{and forwarded one sample of toddyto the} Chemical Examiner,^{who inturn sent Ex'P3-Chemical} analvsis report stating^{that the sample is fermerrbd toclclt'} frce from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. P.W.3 was also

¶36

¶37

not cross-examined^{and his cross-examinationwas reported}

¶38

as Nil.

¶39

The main contention^{of the learned Counsel for the} revlsl0n petitioner/accused^{is that the appellateCourt} failed to consider^{the petitionfiled by the revision petitioner} for cross-examination^{of P.Ws.1to 3 in proPerperspective} and as such it caused^{seriousprejudice to the accused}

¶40

9 A perusal of the case^{recordwould disclose that the} revision petitioner/accused^{engaged an advocatein the trial} Court to defend his^{case, however,he did not cross-examine} P.Ws.1 to 3. One^{R.Subramanyam atrcl A.StrivaRai,} advocates filed memo of^appearance o11 behalf of the accused originally in^{the trial Court. The trial Court} examined P.W.1 on^{03.07.2008, P.W.2 on 10.07.2008and} P.W.3 on 31.07.2008.^{However,the Counselfor the accused} did not cross-examine^{the witnesses for the reasonsbest} known to them.^{Further,the said A.ShivaRai, advocate} filed Cr1.M.P.No.1496^{of 2008, under Section70 (2) Cr'P C',}

¶41

¶42

t \

¶43

on 27.02.2008 seeking to recall Non Bailable Warrant issued against the accused and the same was allowed. That apar! subsequent to conviction and sentence of accused by the trial Court, the same advocate along with another advocate filed a petirion under Secrion 3g9 (3) Cr.p.C. for suspension of sentence of the accused. Therefore, sufficient opporfunity was given b' the triar Court to the accused to cross-examine the wilnesses, however, the accused and his Counsel failed to utilise the said opportunity for the reasons best known to them. Thcrefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned Couuscl for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner/act:usccl is entitled for another opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

¶44

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court of the view that thc Courts below havc rightly applied its mind and camc to the corrclusion that the revision petitioner/accused rvas guilty of the offence punishable under Sectio n 34 (a) of thc. A.P. Excise Act.

However, since the offence took place in the year 2004

¶50

and almost 19 years have passed and during this period the revision petifioner/accused must have repented for what he did, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months imposed against the revision petitioner/accused to One month and further imposes a fine of Rs.25,000/_ , in default, to suffer simpte imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable uader Section 34 (a) of A.p.

¶51

Excise Act.

¶52

'12. With the above modification in the sentence, the

¶53

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

¶55

closed.

¶56

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Nampally' Hyderabad'}

¶61

The^{Xl Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate' Secunderabad.}

¶62

One^{CC to SRl.A. RAM BABU, Advocate[OPUC]} 4. One^{CCto SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC]} 5 Two CD CoPies

¶63

PSR S''llVH

¶64

ffi-'J{:"'=t*:''*::';:. .''

HIGH COURT

PSS, J

DATED: 1710212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1121of 2009

t\ l$tl
Xt
, /:'
c/,",
* Di,E ,;'i.

¶71

THE CRIMINAL REVISION IS DISMISSED.

¶72

^, \23
1<br>3
${r-

Ragir Narasimha v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragir Narasimha v. the State of A.P.

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

E.Ramachandra Rao Vs the State of a.P.,Rep. by P.P., and 2 Others

Sunkara Subba Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Parsi Shashank Vs T.Linga Reddy

Dyagala Uma Sri Vs Komati Anil

Chakinam Vishalakshi Vs Yeshwanth Pawar

Smt. Kyasaram Gangamani Vs Sri Kyasaram Balreddy