THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1563 of 2011
ORDER:
1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 22.07.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirming the judgment dated 11.02.2011 in C.C.No.587 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition & Excise, Warangal, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P.P.Act, 1995, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, in payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2 The accusation against the petitioner was that on 03.12.2004 at about 1.10 PM, the petitioner was found in possession of 26 polythene covers each cover containing two liters of I.D. Liquor in the front room of his house. The same was seized under the cover of panchanama-Ex.P.2. Samples were drawn and were sent to the forensic science laboratory, which reported that the liquor is unfit for human consumption. Hence the petitioner is liable for 2 punishment under Section 7 (A) r/w section 8 (e) of A.P.P Act, 1995.
3 Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of ID liquor; except the official witness P.W.1 who is the Excise Sub- Inspector; there is no other independent witness to prove the guilt of the petitioner and that the sample was sent for analysis after lapse of 12 days.
4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sample was sent 12 days after the seizure is not acceptable because the seals were intact and it was fit for chemical analysis. 5 As there was no motive attributable to the investigating officer, who conducted search and seizure, though the panch witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of the investigating officer can be taken into consideration. Moreover, there is no delay in registering the FIR, which was registered soon after the search and seizure conducted on the same day. When the search and seizure were proved clinchingly and with cogent and concrete evidence, proof of ownership of the house pales into insignificance. 3 6 The evidence of P.W.1 clearly mentions the manner of detection and recovery of contraband of the ID Liquor from the possession of the petitioner corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. The prosecution has followed the procedure meticulously. Therefore, I find no irregularity much less material illegality in the case of the prosecution and accordingly this criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.
7 So far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is concerned, since the offence is of the year 2004 and since the petitioner was in jail for about a week, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view against the petitioner. 8 Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed by the Courts below is reduced to that of the period which the petitioner has already undergone. Except the above modification, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is dismissed. 9 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date:20.09.2023 Kvsn