Tuesday, 09, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Guthula Srinu Venkanna, E.G.Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1397 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1397 AP
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Guthula Srinu Venkanna, E.G.Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., Hyd., on 22 March, 2022
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Crl.R.C.No.193 of 2013

ORDER:-

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Peddapuram filed charge

sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offence under section.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

2. The crux of the case of the prosecution is that on 27.11.2009

PW2 along with independent mediators, PW1 and other staff

members during patrolling reached 9 km milestone on the road

leading from Rangampeta to Singamapalli and noticed the accused at

6:20 A.M. The accused was carrying a gunny bag on his shoulder.

On seeing the excise police the accused tried to skulk away. On

suspicion the excise police detained the accused and noticed 12

polythene covers in the bag. Each cover contains 5 litres of ID

arrack. On questioning the accused disclosed his name and identity

particulars. The accused confessed that he purchased the

contraband for retail sale on profit. PW2 arrested the accused and

seized 60 litres of I.D. arrack under the cover of mediators report.

PW2 has drawn the sample of 300 ml of I.D. arrack into MO1 sample

bottle, sealed and affixed with identification slips. Basing on Ex P1,

PW2 registered a case in Crime No.724/09-10 and issued Ex P2-

F.I.R. PW2 produced the accused before the Court for judicial

remand along with Ex P2.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

examined PW1-VRO, Peddapuram and PW2, who is the Investigating

Officer.

4. Learned Magistrate after conducting trial found the accused

guilty for the offence under Sections. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). In default of payment of

fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two

months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW1, VRO,

Peddapuram is not an independent witness and the evidence of PW1

cannot be considered and the trial Court erred in convicting the

accused basing on the evidence of PW1.

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner herein preferred

an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2011 on the file of learned

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The lower

appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Court below stating

that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be brushed aside on the

ground that PW2 did not secure independent mediators of the

locality and secured only PW1-V.R.O., Peddapuram.

7. This Court as per the order dated 07.02.2020 in

Crl.R.C.No.711 of 2007 07.02.2020, held that due to the non-

examination of the independent witness by the prosecution, a doubt

arises as to the incident in question. In "S. Babu Saheb @ Babu V.

State of Andhra Pradesh1" this Court acquitted the accused on the

ground that no efforts were made to take independent mediator and

it is not desirable to convict the accused.

2009 (4) A.P.L.J. 57 (HC)

8. Relying on the afore mentioned judgments this Court feels that

when there is no independent mediator examined, the case of the

prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1-

V.R.O., who is not an independent witness. Hence, the prosecution

failed to prove the case of the accused in non-examining the

independent witness.

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The

conviction and sentence recorded against the Revision

Petitioner/accused in the Judgment dated 30.09.2010, in

C.C.No.126 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, which was confirmed in Criminal

Appeal No.114 of 2011 by the learned III Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kakinada on 31.01.2013 is set aside. Consequently,

the accused shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in

any other case or crime.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 22-03-2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Crl.R.C.No.193 OF 2013

Date: 22-03-2022

EPS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter