Telangana High Court
Jagiryala Goudla Sharada vs The State Of A.P. on 4 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1182 OF 2012
Between:
Jagiryala @ Goudla Sharada
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.07.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 1182 OF 2012
% Dated 04.07.2024
# Jagiryala @ Goudla Sharada
... Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.Sudarshan
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Suresh Goud
Assistant Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1182 OF 2012
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in NDPS S.C.No.25 of 2012, dated 31.10.2012, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was running Toddy outlet. The husband of PW1 and others consumed toddy in the shop and later the husband died. The allegation is that the Toddy is adulterated with Benzodiazepine which is sedative along with Ethyl Alcohol. Further, there was no valid licence to sell.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW1, crime was registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34(a) and 37(A) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. During the course of investigation, Toddy was sent for FLS examination. Since it was found that Narcotic substance was present in the Toddy, 4 charge sheet was also filed under Section 8(c) r/w.22 of the NDPS Act.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having framed charges examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. Learned Sessions Judge found that no offence under Section 37(A) of the A.P.Excise Act and 8 (c) r/w.22 of the NDPS Act, were made out, however, found the appellant guilty under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that all the witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. In fact, the Investigation Officer has stated that he has not collected any evidence to show that the appellant was running shop or selling Toddy in the said outlet. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of conviction under Section 34 of A.P.Excise Act, does not arise.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is specifically mentioned in the FSL report and also the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 stated during chief-examination that the appellant was running the Toddy shop.
8. Having gone through the record, the witnesses PWs.1, 2 and 3 though stated that the deceased and others consumed Toddy in the 5 shop which was being run by the appellant, turned hostile during cross-examination and gave contradictory version. Apart from the said contradictory version of PWs.1 to 3, no other witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. Even the Panch witnesses to the scene were declared hostile. The Investigation Officer has not collected any evidence to show that the shop was either being run by the appellant or that he was in exclusive possession of the said shop when the incident had taken place. In the absence of any proof connecting the appellant to the shop, the question of conviction under Section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, does not arise.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in NDPS S.C.No.25 of 2012, dated 31.10.2012, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand discharged.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 04.07.2024 tk