THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.753 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 r/w 7(a) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.
2. On 02.09.2003 at about 10.30 a.m, the Excise Sub- Inspector apprehended the petitioner and he was found in possession of 20 liters ID liquor. On the said basis, the petitioner was remanded to custody.
3. On perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. No search memo is found on record, though the alleged incident took place on 02.09.2003.
4. The petitioner was convicted on pleading guilty. As seen from the order dated 03.09.2003 by the Special Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam vide C.C.No.596 of 2003, the alleged seizure was on 02.09.2003 and by 03.09.2003, according to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the 20 liters ID liquor was already destroyed. 2 No samples were drawn. From the judgment of the learned Magistrate, it is not known as to what is the charge framed against the petitioner and it is not on record that the consequences of pleading guilty, in the back ground of minimum sentence of six months imprisonment, which can be inflicted, was neither stated nor explained to the petitioner herein. The said order of the learned Magistrate is inherently improper and unlawful unless the Magistrate explains to the accused, the charge that would be framed against him and unless it is to the knowledge of the accused that a minimum sentence was prescribed in the said Act. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate in not explaining the sentence of imprisonment and also the judgment not reflecting the charge that was framed, the course adopted is illegal.
5. Learned Sessions Judge has not adhered to any of these factors and confirmed the orders of the learned Magistrate. In accordance with Section 375 of Cr.P.C, if the conviction is on pleading guilty, appeal cannot be entertained. However, the learned Sessions Judge discussed about the seizure and confirmed the sentence. 3
For the reason of the learned Magistrate not explaining the consequences of pleading guilty and there are no details of the charge that was framed against the petitioner, this Court deems it an illegality in convicting the petitioner. For the said reason, the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam in C.C.No.596 of 2003 dated 03.09.2003 and consequently, the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2003, dated 15.06.2006 are set aside.
6. No useful purpose would be served if the case is remanded back to the trial court for the reason of there being no record or no samples that were drawn of the liquor which was seized and they were not sent to any institute to confirm that the contents seized was illicit liquor.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Since the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.12.2022 kvs 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRLRC No.753 OF 2008 Dt. 26.12.2022 kvs 5