Dismissed

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024CRLRC/2046/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 CrPC challenging convictions for illegal liquor sale under the A.P. Excise Act, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with lower courts' findings, dismissed the challenge, and reduced the sentence to time already served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner; miscellaneous applications to be closed.

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., Vs the State of Telangana… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s91

¶2

¶3

NorE: - The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 05-08-2016 in Crt.R.C.M.p. No. 3023 of 2016 in Crl.RC No: 2M6 of 2016.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2046 OF 2016

¶9

criminal Revision case filed under section 397 & 401 of crpc against the judgment dated 3-8-2016 in crt.A.No. 'ts9 ot 2014 on the file of the court of the 1"t Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy preferred against the judgment dated^'18-1 1-2014 in CC.No. 538 of 2O12 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, special court for prohibition and Excise Offences at Sanga Reddy.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Yanda.Raju^{S/o. Bala Raju,Aged 42 yearc, Occ:ManagerSuhana Dhaba,} R/o. Sriniyasam Apartment, Pothireddyf;ally, Sangareddy,^-Medak District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 1

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, through rep. by the State public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Palle Sriharinath

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL c REVIsIOIt lYo. OF 20t6

¶19

o RD E R:

¶20

This Criminat Revision Case is Iiled by the petitioner_ accused No. I under Sections 397 and 4Ol of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.p.C.J aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03.08.2O16 in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred as .the learned appellate Court J confirming the Judgment of Conrriction and Sentence dated lg. 1 1.2014 in C.C.No.53 g of 20l2passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class Special court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred as^.the leamed trial CourtJ.

¶21

Heard Sri palle Srihari Nath, learned counsel for the reyision petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State_respondent.

¶22

The brief facts of the case a_re that on 13.05.2013 at 20.00 hours, on credible information about illegal sale of liquor at Suhana Dhaba, the Sub Inspector of police, Sangareddy Tou,n Police Station along with his staff, conducted a raid at Suh-ana

¶23

¶24

Dhaba and found three customers consuming liquor by placing beer bottles on the table. Immediately, the Sub Inspector of Police secured panch witnesses and enquired with the consumers and they revealed their identity ald further stated the Hote1 Management allowed ttrem to consume liquor. Later, the Sub_ inspector of Police enquired with the Management i.e., accused No. I and 2. The petitioner-accused No.l, who voluntarily confessed about selling of liquor on high prices in their Dhaba and produced 7 bottles of Royal Challenge, 4 bottles of Bacardi Breez.er,2 Knockout beer bottles from the Fridge and the same were seized under a cover of panchanama by colleting samples and also seized three plastic chairs and one plastic table. The Sub-Inspector of police registered a suo-motto case against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.188 of 2Ol2 for the offences under Section 34(a), 15(4) read with 41 of the A.p. Excise Act, 1968.

¶25

The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated lg.ll.2}l4 passed in C.C.No.538 of 2072 found petitioner-accused No.l guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.p. Excise Act, 1968 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.S,O0O/-, in default, the petitioner-accused No.1 shall undergo Simple Impriso4lqenLJ. Jor

¶26

¶27

one month arld further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to pay a line of Rs.2,OOO/- for the offence under Section I5(4) read with 41 of A.P. Excise Act, 196g, in default, the petitioner_accused No. I shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days. The remand period shall be set off under Section 42g of Cr.p.C. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal.

¶28

The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 01.08.2016 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.l58 of 2014, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set-aside the impugned judgment.

¶30

Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the learned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment -9 $.^{interference of this court} is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

¶31

¶32

Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PW. 1 to PW.8 were examined and Exs.pl to p5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

¶33

The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record found that pWs.2, 3 who are constables and PW.7, who is the Investigating Oflicer, are corroborating with each other about conducting raid at suhana Dhaba and seizure of particular brand of liquor bottles. Further, their evidence is also corroborating with the evidence of pW.g_ customer, who ordered beer bottles and also partly corroborated with the evidence of^pW. 1, who was associated to pW.g. Apart from that the evidence of pW.4-panch witness is corroborating with the evidence of Investigating Off,rcer about seizure of beer bottles. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the leamed trial Court by way of its Judgment convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra.

¶34

The learned appellate Court upon re-appreciating the material available on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner for the offences under Section 34(a) and 15(4) read with 41 of A.p. Excise Acl, 1968.

¶35

¶36

A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide Order dated 05.08.2016 passed in CRL.R.C.M.p.No.3023 of 2016 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Criminal Revision case a,d enrarged petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

¶37

In the case on harrd, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner_ accused No.l herein was found guilty for the offences under Section 34(a) and t5(4) read with 41 of A.p. Excise Act, 1968, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference' in exercise of revisionar jurisdiction under section 397 and 401 of the Cr.p.C., as there are no grounds much less valid grounds, or irregr.rlarities, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

¶39

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as eight long years have elapsed from the date of liling this Revision, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in favour of the petitioner and,

¶40

¶41

reduce the sentence imposed agajnst the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending i1 any, sha]I stand closed.

¶43

sd/- T. SRINIVAS
//TRUE COPYII DEPU REGISTRAR
To, TION OFFICER
1
District and sessions Judge, Meda
I*ili+T;linal
2
3.
ift3.i#i$g,r'*t or First c ra s s, s pecia r c o u rt . :ffi :: :l.. :,:J
4.
5.
6.
{}:Egp:##ii""s,,ffi ',,.,1ilJffi{x[,:?fi ,i;ilo.u"Bni,,,:fll6""sareddy
vH/gh
E.

-tl

-..-,_-,___E!

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211012024

ORDER

!]. . -r, S, r4l
,.)
a
)
0 ,r 2025 6(vaz
<br>:.-' *
l_r ..1 (: 99

¶51

CRLRC.No.2046 of 2016

¶52

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

¶53

<br>)Ww

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep 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

Mrs. B.Vasanthi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mrs. B. Vasanthi, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Thumpari Usha Rani, Vs Kuchana Thirupathi

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Kolla Madhava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and Another