Telangana High Court
Thursa Sammaiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 26 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.753 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings
of conviction for the offence under Section 34(a) of
A.P.Excise Act, 1968 r/w 7(a) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.
2. On 02.09.2003 at about 10.30 a.m, the Excise Sub-
Inspector apprehended the petitioner and he was found in
possession of 20 liters ID liquor. On the said basis, the
petitioner was remanded to custody.
3. On perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner was
not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. No
search memo is found on record, though the alleged
incident took place on 02.09.2003.
4. The petitioner was convicted on pleading guilty. As
seen from the order dated 03.09.2003 by the Special
Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam vide
C.C.No.596 of 2003, the alleged seizure was on 02.09.2003
and by 03.09.2003, according to the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, the 20 liters ID liquor was already destroyed.
No samples were drawn. From the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, it is not known as to what is the charge framed
against the petitioner and it is not on record that the
consequences of pleading guilty, in the back ground of
minimum sentence of six months imprisonment, which can
be inflicted, was neither stated nor explained to the
petitioner herein. The said order of the learned Magistrate is
inherently improper and unlawful unless the Magistrate
explains to the accused, the charge that would be framed
against him and unless it is to the knowledge of the accused
that a minimum sentence was prescribed in the said Act.
The procedure adopted by the Magistrate in not explaining
the sentence of imprisonment and also the judgment not
reflecting the charge that was framed, the course adopted is
illegal.
5. Learned Sessions Judge has not adhered to any of
these factors and confirmed the orders of the learned
Magistrate. In accordance with Section 375 of Cr.P.C, if the
conviction is on pleading guilty, appeal cannot be
entertained. However, the learned Sessions Judge discussed
about the seizure and confirmed the sentence.
For the reason of the learned Magistrate not explaining
the consequences of pleading guilty and there are no details
of the charge that was framed against the petitioner, this
Court deems it an illegality in convicting the petitioner. For
the said reason, the order of the learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam in C.C.No.596 of
2003 dated 03.09.2003 and consequently, the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2003, dated 15.06.2006 are set
aside.
6. No useful purpose would be served if the case is
remanded back to the trial court for the reason of there
being no record or no samples that were drawn of the liquor
which was seized and they were not sent to any institute to
confirm that the contents seized was illicit liquor.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Since
the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.12.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRLRC No.753 OF 2008
Dt. 26.12.2022
kvs
