THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
\\
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.766 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners - appellants - accused aggrieved by the judgment of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015 dated 25.02.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.165 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 for the offence under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet filed by the Prohibition and Excise Police, Pargi was that on 27.05.2014 at about 06:45 PM on credible information about the possession and transportation of ID liquor near Roopkhanpet Gate, Nagarjuna Feeds Factory on the road leading from Pargi to Kodangal, the Excise Officials secured the panch witnesses and proceeded to the spot and found a Bajaj Auto bearing registration No.AP 25 TK T/R 8725. On suspicion, they stopped the auto and found a person with two (02) gunny bags. On opening the bags, they found 25 packets in each bag, each packet containing 5 litres of ID liquor, in total 250 litres of ID liquor in the said bags. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their identity particulars. Later, they 2 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016 had drawn two samples each containing 350 ml of ID liquor from the contraband, sealed the samples and seized the contraband, pasted the signed chits on the sample bottles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the panch witnesses and later brought the accused persons along with the contraband and the auto to the Excise Station and basing on the panchanama, registered a case vide COR 237 of 2014-15 under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. A2 was the driver of the auto. They deposited the contraband and the auto before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and sent one of the samples to the Government Chemical Examiner, RPEL, Hyderabad for analysis. The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample issued a report that the sample was containing illicit distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. The Excise Officials obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District for destruction of the seized property and filed charge-sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 amended in 1977.
3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi had taken cognizance of the offence and conducted trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs.1 and 2.
3
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016
5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found A1 and A2 guilty for the offence under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused A1 and A2 preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District vide Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015 and vide judgment dated 25.02.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants - accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi.
7. Aggrieved further, the petitioners - appellants - accused preferred this revision contending that the lower appellate court mechanically dismissed the appeal. Both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court ought to have seen that there were contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and no ingredients were made out to attract the offence under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. PWs.1 and 2 were planted and stock witnesses. The prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the petitioners. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court ought to have seen that the Excise Officials falsely implicated the petitioners for 4 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016 statistical purpose and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the orders of the courts below.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
9. Revision is the process of changing or improving or making additions to the existing law or piece of writing. Revision is an art of revising or revisiting a work done with an intent to fix the thing for betterment. A revision sometimes opens the scope of visiting a work done which might or might not attract alteration. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as on facts but the power of revision is given to a superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Where there is no right to appeal, the legislature provided the concept of review procedure called revision to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The purpose of revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding before any inferior court to keep the lower courts within the bounds of their authority and make them work according to well-defined principles of law. Revisional Jurisdiction is analogous to power of supervision and superintendence.
10. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, both the courts below had appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in detail and found that the panch 5 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016 witnesses PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed that, on 27.05.2014, the Excise Police called them to the Police Station and stated about the credible information received by them about possession and transport of ID liquor near Roopkhanpet Gate and they proceeded along with the Excise Officials to Roopkhanpet Gate and found a Bajaj Auto with registration bearing No.AP 25 TKT/R 8725. The Excise Officials stopped the auto, found a person with two white gunny bags. On opening the said bags, they found 25 packets in each bag containing ID liquor. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their identity particulars. PWs.1 and 2 deposed that at the time of raid, A1 was in possession of ID liquor and A2 was driving the vehicle and the Excise Officials seized the ID liquor and had drawn samples from the contraband and pasted signed chits on the sample bottles and the Excise Officials seized the remaining contraband in their presence under the cover of panchanama.
11. The trial court noted that PWs.3 and 4 were the Excise Officials who detected the offence and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborated with the evidence of the Excise Officials PWs.3 and 4. The trial court considered the defence taken by the accused persons with regard to the contention that PWs.1 and 2 were stock witnesses set up by the Excise Officials, but found that nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4 also to discredit 6 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016 their evidence. The trial court found that there were no reasons for PWs.3 and 4 to implicate the accused unless the accused had committed the offence.
12. The Chemical Examiner's report was marked as Ex.P.3 and as per the Chemical Examiner, the sample was containing illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The trial court also observed that PWs.1 and 2 identified their signatures on the sample bottles and as per Exs.P.5 and P.6, the contraband was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District and the Excise Officials obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner to destroy the remaining contraband. The trial court observed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs.1 and 2 proved that A1 and A2 illegally transported ID liquor of 250 litres in an auto near Roopkhanpet Gate, Nagarjuna Feeds Factory. As such sentenced them to the minimum imprisonment provided under the Act.
13. The lower appellate court also reappraised the evidence of the witnesses and on considering the provisions under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, observed that there were no material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contended by the appellants - accused. Having scrutinized the entire evidence borne by the record, the lower appellate court noted that it had no hesitation to hold that prosecution proved that the accused were in possession of 250 litres of ID liquor on 27.05.2014 at 06:45 PM 7 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016 in an open place i.e., road leading from Pargi to Kodangal near Roopkhanpet Gate, Nagarjuna Feeds Factory and the same was seized by the Excise Officials.
14. The lower appellate court also observed that though there was a prohibition to manufacture the liquor, the accused were in possession of the same without any license and selling it in a clandestine manner and PWs.3 and 4 on receipt of credible information, conducted raid in the case on hand after securing panch witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and seized the contraband. The evidence of panch witnesses corroborated with the testimony of PWs.3 and 4 on all material particulars.
15. Thus, both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court considered the evidence on record and as the same was in accordance with the law under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them.
16. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the judgments of the courts below in convicting the petitioners - appellants - accused and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
8
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016
17. Hence, it is considered fit to dismiss the revision confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against the petitioners - appellants - accused.
18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015 dated 25.02.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.165 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 for the offence under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act against the petitioners - appellants - accused. The petitioners - appellants - accused are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. If the petitioners - accused failed to surrender, the trial court shall take steps in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J 09th March, 2023 nsk.