Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Devara Subbulu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 23 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.197 of 2013
ORDER:-
The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Inspector,
Bapatla filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the
offence under Sections.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition
Act, 1995.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.09.2011, on the
instructions of LW7, LW3 to LW6 conducted raids for detecting
prohibition and excise offences. At about 9:30 A.M., when they
reached at a house bearing No.1-148, on North to GBC road, i.e. in
Putta Bazar, China Bethapudi Village, they found accused holding
two plastic cans in her hand. On seeing the excise officials, the
accused tried to skulk away. However, the excise officials detained
her and asked about the contents of plastic can. In the presence of
two mediators, the accused disclosed the identity particulars that the
can contained illicit distilled liquor (I.D. Liquor).
3. Then the excise officials verified the cans and found that the
cans contained 10 litres of I.D. Arrack each. Subsequently, LW6
drawn 180 ml of I.D. Arrack in a bottle for the purpose of chemical
analysis and then affixed the seal and labels on the sample bottles
and also on the plastic cans. A special report was drafted to that
effect and basing on the same registered a case in Crime
No.161/2011-12.
5. After investigation, they have filed the charge sheet to that
effect. The prosecution examined PW1-V.R.O., Bethapudi Village,
2
PW2, who is the Head Constable, Bapatla, PW3, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Prohibition & Excise, Bapatla, PW4, C.I. of Police, Prohibition
& Excise. PW2 and PW3 deposed on the same lines stating that when
they conducted joint raids for Prohibition and Excise offences at
about 08:30 A.M., they noticed the accused in possession of two
black plastic cans. On enquiry, the accused revealed that the can
contained ID Arrack.
6. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the offences
under Sections.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and
sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2)
months and pay a fine amount of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of
fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
twenty (20) days.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below, the petitioner
herein filed appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.269 of 2012 on the file of
the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned
appellate Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and
dismissed the said Criminal Appeal vide order dated 31.03.2013.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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.
10. In "S. Babu Saheb @ Babu V. State of Andhra Pradesh 1" 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.
11. He also submits that as per the evidence of PW1-V.R.O., who is
not an independent mediator, the accused was not identified. His
evidence cannot be considered for the purpose of convicting the
accused by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in,
"Angadi Srinivasa Rao and others V. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by
Public Prosecutor2," wherein it is held that it is not safe to convict the
accused on the interested testimonies of witnesses and acquitted the
accused on the said ground.
12. In the present case also, PW1-V.R.O. is an interested witness
and it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW1. As per the afore
mentioned judgment, 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.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
conviction and sentence recorded against the Revision
Petitioner/accused in the Judgment dated 03.08.2012 in C.C.No.351
of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Bapatla, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.269 of 2012
on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on
2009 (4) A.P.L.J. 57 (HC)
2010 93) ALT (CRI.) 242 (S.B.)
31.01.2013 is set aside. Consequently, the accused shall be set at
liberty, forthwith, if she is not required in any other case or crime.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 23-03-2022
EPS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.197 OF 2013
Date: 23-03-2022
EPS
