Partly allowed

Syed Sadiq, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC7 Aug 2024CRLRC/1921/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 5(b) of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act for possession of illicit distilled liquor was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting the incident dated back about 22 years.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; revision otherwise dismissed.

Syed Sadiq, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1921 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Syed Sadiq, S/o. Mohammed Arif, aged about 35^yrs, Occ:Drtver,^{R/o. 16-9-283,} tvlalakpet, Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the} State of Telangana, Hyderabad. through SHO., Ibrahimpatnam^P.S.,

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Revision filed under Section 3971401 of^{CrPC praying that in the} crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the CriminalRevision} Case, the High Court may be^pleased to file the^againstthe iudgment^and senlence passed by the learned lV Addl. Sessions^{Judge,Rangareddy,} dt 30 09.2010 in Crl.A.No. 9912007

¶13

l.A. NO: 2OF 2010(CRLRCMP. NO: 2840 OF²⁰¹⁰⁾

¶14

Pelition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending^{the sentence awarded to the} petitione r.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI D. V. CHALAPATHI^RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶19

CRIMINAL REVI^{SION CASENo.1921OF 2O1O}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The revision^{petitioner/A2was convicted for the offence} under Section^S(b) of^{the A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act and} Amendment Act,¹⁹⁹⁷ by^{the trial Court and later conlirmed in} appeal by the Sessions^Court.

¶22

Briefly, the case of the complainant is^{that the revision} petitioner was found in^possession of^{60O litres of illicit distilled} Iiquor in 9 rubber tubes^{which he was carrying in the van. The} Police personnel PWs.2, 3 and^{4 along with the Sub-Inspector-} PW.6, then stopped the^{vehicle and seized the liquor. Samples} were drawn and sent to the^{FSL for the purpose of examination.} Further, procedure^{u'as followed and panchanarnawas conducted} by the Police. Later, the accused^{was produced before the} concerned Court and sent to^remand.

¶23

\ \ 3. In the Cotrrts belou'it was argued that^{the report sent by the} Government Anall'st lt'as not marked^{through the Analyst, but} through the lnvestigating Officer. Further,^{there is discrepancy} regarding the clualtum of the liquor^seized. Initially, the^Police

¶24

¶25

stdted it was 1,000 litres and thereafter 6OO litres. Due to the said discrepancy, prosecution case cannot be believed.

¶26

l,earned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued on the same grounds that were urged before the Courts below. Adequate reasons are given by the Courts below that the Government Analyst report can be considered under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. and typographical error had crept into regarding the quantum.

¶27

I do not find any reason to interfere with the hndings of the Courts below. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2OO2 and nearly 22 years have passed by and there are no other cases are pending insofar as the petitioner is concerned which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced the period already undergone

¶28

6 Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case ispartly allowed.

¶29

Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Learned lV Addl. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy 2 One CC to Sri D.V Chalapathi Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶34

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4 Two CD Copies

Y-

i l ) I : ! l :

HIGH COURT DATED:07 t0Bt2OZ4

¶39

I I ! )

¶40

ORDER

¶41

. r^l .
'(" ..<br>!
i .:.
l!
{ ?ul
. a
. .a
.: '1,1.. o.^*c_f

¶42

CRLRC.No.1921 of 2010

¶43

Partly allowing the Criminal Revision Case

¶44

4-cd?t1+
-
4(rr

Syed Sadiq, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sadiq, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Smt. Maimooda , Shaik Mahamooda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Vs P. Shabbir Hussain, Kurnool Dist., and 4 Ano.

Polepally Pentaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P.,through SHO Rajendranagar P.S,R.R.Dt by Pp

B.Saritha Vs K. Srisailam Goud and Another

Shaik Altaf Vs Sri Syed Mahmood Hussain and Another

The Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Hyd. Vs Karepu Raj Kumar and Another