B. Ramulu, vs The Stae Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 658 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                   CRL.R.C.No.1174 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the

judgment of the learned II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.379 of 2006, dated 25.08.2007,

confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment

for a period of One year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default,

simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the

offence under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

imposed against the revision petitioner/A1 by the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases,

Hyderabad, in C.C.No.326 of 2000 dated 07.11.2006.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.1996 at about

4.00 P.M. P.W.1-Sub Inspector of Prohibition and Excise along

with P.Ws.2 and 5-panch witnesses raided the house bearing

No.3-6-584/F, Street No.8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, and

found 2,623 bottles of Royal Choice Whisky of 750 ml each in

109 gunny bags each containing 24 pet bottles and another bag

containing 7 bottles in the cellar portion of the house and on

interrogation, the revision petitioner/A1 stated that he was

employed by A-3 and the said premises was taken on lease

from A-2, A-4 and A-5 to store the said contraband. Thereafter,

the said contraband was seized under cover of panchanama in

the presence of panch witnesses.

The revision petitioner/A-1 along with four other

accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b)

of A.P. Prohibition Act.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P5 to prove the guilt of the accused. On

perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the

trial Court, while acquitting A-2, A-4 and A-5, found the

revision petitioner/A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 8 (b)

of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and

sentenced him as stated supra. The case against A-3 was split

up since he was absconding.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/A1

against the said conviction and sentence, the learned II-

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirmed

the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/A-1 preferred

this criminal revision.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State and perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the record discloses that the revision

petitioner/A-1 was employed by A-3 and A-3 took the

premises on rent from A-2, A-4 and A-5 for Rs.1,500/- per

month for storage of the aforesaid contraband. P.W.1 drew the

samples and seized the contraband under cover of Ex.P2-

Panchanama attested by P.Ws.2 and 5. However, P.W.2-the

then Revenue Inspector, Nampally, who was the mediator for

search and seizure of contraband from the possession of the

revision petitioner/A-1, did not choose to name the revision

petitioner/A-1 and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution.

The another mediator (P.W.5), who worked as Deputy

Tahsildar, Musheerabad, during the relevant period, supported

the case of the prosecution about the search and seizure of the

contraband and the issuance of Ex.P1-Search Memo and

conducting Ex.P2-Panchanama.

According to P.W.1, he drafted Ex.P1 at the office,

whereas P.W.2 stated that Ex.P1 was prepared at the spot and

denied the suggestion that Exs.P1 and P2 were prepared in the

Excise Office. Hence, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 about the place of drafting Ex.P1-Search

Proceedings and as such the very issuance of Ex.P1 search

proceedings is doubtful. Further, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 could not

identify the revision petitioner/A-1 before the trial Court that

he is the person who was in-charge of the contraband at the

time of search and seizure. That apart, in the instant case, the

revision petitioner/A-1 along with A-2 to A-5 was tried for the

offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the A.P. Prohibition

Act on the same set of allegations. However, the trial Court

found the revision petitioner/A-1 guilty of the said charge and

accordingly convicted and sentenced him, while acquitting A-2,

A-4 and A-5. The case against A-3, who is the employer of the

revision petitioner/A-1 and who took the premises on rent

from A-2, A-4 and A-5, was split up since he was absconding.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view

that the Courts below erred in convicting the revision

petitioner/A-1 for the offence under Section 8 (b) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as

affirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 8

(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act are hereby set aside and the revision

petitioner/A-1 is acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if

any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

15.02.2022 Gsn.