Kondareddy Nageswara Rao vs Sub Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 1434 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                           Crl.R.C.No.87 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.


2.     The case of the prosecution is that, as per the orders of the

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur on 11.01.2012,

LW3 to LW5 along with their staff and officials of Ongole

Enforcement Wing, Guntur Enforcement Wing and Tenali Sub-

Division while conducted joint raids for detecting prohibition and

excise offences at about 9:00 A.M. When they reached by the side of

Gram Panchayat Office of Chinnabethapudi, they noticed the

accused who was holding a black plastic can in his right hand and

on seeing them the accused tried to skulk away. However, the excise

officials detained him and asked about his identity particulars and

the contents of plastic can. LW5 requested LW1 and LW2 who are

VRO and Panchayat Secretary, available in Panchayat Office which

was located besides the scene of offence. In their presence the

accused disclosed the identity particulars that the can contained

illicit distilled liquor (I.D. Liquor).


3.     Then the excise officials verified the can and found the can

contained 10 litres of I.D. Arrack. Subsequently, LW5 drawn 180 ml

of I.D. Arrack separately in a bottle for the purpose of chemical

analysis and then sealed and labelled the bottle, affixed the identity
                                   2



slips on it as well as the plastic can and then seized the remaining

I.D. Arrack in the same can.


4.    A mediator's report was drafted to that effect and the same is

attested by the mediators and a copy of the same was served to the

accused under his acknowledgment. Later, Sub-Inspector of Police

arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest and

brought him to the Excise Station along with case property. Basing

on the Mediator's report, LW5 (S.I. of police) registered a case in

Crime No.293/2011-12.


5.    After investigation, they have filed the charge sheet to that

effect. The prosecution examined PW1-V.R.O., PW2, who is the Head

Constable, Bapatla, PW3, C.I. of Police, Prohibition & Excise,

Bapatla, PW4, Sub-Inspector of Prohibition & Excise. PW2 and PW4

deposed on the same lines stating that when they conducted joint

raids for Prohibition and Excise offences at about 09:00 A.M., they

noticed the accused in possession of one black plastic can. 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 him 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.337 of 2012 on the file of

the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned
                                                 3



appellate Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and

dismissed the Criminal Appeal vide order dated 17.01.2012.


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 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

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

2010 93) ALT (CRI.) 242 (S.B.)

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 12.09.2012, in

C.C.No.170 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Bapatla, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.337 of

2012 dated 17.01.2012 on the file of the learned III Additional

Sessions Judge, Guntur on 17.01.2012 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: 23-03-2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Crl.R.C.No.87 OF 2013

Date: 23-03-2022

EPS