Paltya Ramulu, R.R.Dist. Ano vs Sho, Proh. Ex., Parigi, R.R.Dist.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1086 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
                                          \\




           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.766 OF 2016

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners - appellants -

accused aggrieved by the judgment of the XII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015

dated 25.02.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.165 of

2015 dated 25.06.2015 for the offence under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet filed by the

Prohibition and Excise Police, Pargi was that on 27.05.2014 at about 06:45 PM

on credible information about the possession and transportation of ID liquor

near Roopkhanpet Gate, Nagarjuna Feeds Factory on the road leading from

Pargi to Kodangal, the Excise Officials secured the panch witnesses and

proceeded to the spot and found a Bajaj Auto bearing registration No.AP 25 TK

T/R 8725. On suspicion, they stopped the auto and found a person with two

(02) gunny bags. On opening the bags, they found 25 packets in each bag, each

packet containing 5 litres of ID liquor, in total 250 litres of ID liquor in the said

bags. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their identity particulars. Later, they

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

had drawn two samples each containing 350 ml of ID liquor from the

contraband, sealed the samples and seized the contraband, pasted the signed

chits on the sample bottles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the

panch witnesses and later brought the accused persons along with the

contraband and the auto to the Excise Station and basing on the panchanama,

registered a case vide COR 237 of 2014-15 under Section 7-A read with Section

8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. A2 was the driver of the auto. They deposited the

contraband and the auto before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise and sent one of the samples to the Government Chemical Examiner,

RPEL, Hyderabad for analysis. The Government Chemical Examiner after

analyzing the sample issued a report that the sample was containing illicit

distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose. The Excise Officials obtained

permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ranga

Reddy District for destruction of the seized property and filed charge-sheet

against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act, 1995 amended in 1977.

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi had taken cognizance of the

offence and conducted trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 4 and

got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs.1 and 2.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial

court found A1 and A2 guilty for the offence under Section 7-A read with

Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused A1 and A2

preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the XII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District vide Criminal Appeal No.38

of 2015 and vide judgment dated 25.02.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming

the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants - accused by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi.

7. Aggrieved further, the petitioners - appellants - accused preferred this

revision contending that the lower appellate court mechanically dismissed the

appeal. Both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court ought to have

seen that there were contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and no

ingredients were made out to attract the offence under Section 7-A read with

Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. PWs.1 and 2 were planted and stock

witnesses. The prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses to prove

the guilt of the petitioners. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court

ought to have seen that the Excise Officials falsely implicated the petitioners for

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

statistical purpose and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the orders of

the courts below.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.

9. Revision is the process of changing or improving or making additions to

the existing law or piece of writing. Revision is an art of revising or revisiting a

work done with an intent to fix the thing for betterment. A revision sometimes

opens the scope of visiting a work done which might or might not attract

alteration. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as

on facts but the power of revision is given to a superior court so that it may

satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Where

there is no right to appeal, the legislature provided the concept of review

procedure called revision to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The purpose of

revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding

before any inferior court to keep the lower courts within the bounds of their

authority and make them work according to well-defined principles of law.

Revisional Jurisdiction is analogous to power of supervision and

superintendence.

10. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, both the courts below

had appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in detail and found that the panch

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

witnesses PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed that, on 27.05.2014, the Excise

Police called them to the Police Station and stated about the credible

information received by them about possession and transport of ID liquor near

Roopkhanpet Gate and they proceeded along with the Excise Officials to

Roopkhanpet Gate and found a Bajaj Auto with registration bearing No.AP 25

TKT/R 8725. The Excise Officials stopped the auto, found a person with two

white gunny bags. On opening the said bags, they found 25 packets in each bag

containing ID liquor. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their identity

particulars. PWs.1 and 2 deposed that at the time of raid, A1 was in possession

of ID liquor and A2 was driving the vehicle and the Excise Officials seized the

ID liquor and had drawn samples from the contraband and pasted signed chits

on the sample bottles and the Excise Officials seized the remaining contraband

in their presence under the cover of panchanama.

11. The trial court noted that PWs.3 and 4 were the Excise Officials who

detected the offence and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborated with the

evidence of the Excise Officials PWs.3 and 4. The trial court considered the

defence taken by the accused persons with regard to the contention that PWs.1

and 2 were stock witnesses set up by the Excise Officials, but found that

nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony and

nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4 also to discredit

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

their evidence. The trial court found that there were no reasons for PWs.3 and 4

to implicate the accused unless the accused had committed the offence.

12. The Chemical Examiner's report was marked as Ex.P.3 and as per the

Chemical Examiner, the sample was containing illicit distilled liquor unfit for

human consumption and injurious to health. The trial court also observed that

PWs.1 and 2 identified their signatures on the sample bottles and as per Exs.P.5

and P.6, the contraband was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Ranga Reddy District and the Excise Officials obtained

permission from the Deputy Commissioner to destroy the remaining

contraband. The trial court observed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled

with Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs.1 and 2 proved that A1 and A2 illegally

transported ID liquor of 250 litres in an auto near Roopkhanpet Gate, Nagarjuna

Feeds Factory. As such sentenced them to the minimum imprisonment

provided under the Act.

13. The lower appellate court also reappraised the evidence of the witnesses

and on considering the provisions under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act, observed that there were no material contradictions in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses as contended by the appellants - accused.

Having scrutinized the entire evidence borne by the record, the lower appellate

court noted that it had no hesitation to hold that prosecution proved that the

accused were in possession of 250 litres of ID liquor on 27.05.2014 at 06:45 PM

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

in an open place i.e., road leading from Pargi to Kodangal near Roopkhanpet

Gate, Nagarjuna Feeds Factory and the same was seized by the Excise Officials.

14. The lower appellate court also observed that though there was a

prohibition to manufacture the liquor, the accused were in possession of the

same without any license and selling it in a clandestine manner and PWs.3 and

4 on receipt of credible information, conducted raid in the case on hand after

securing panch witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and seized the contraband. The evidence

of panch witnesses corroborated with the testimony of PWs.3 and 4 on all

material particulars.

15. Thus, both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court considered

the evidence on record and as the same was in accordance with the law under

Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, convicted the

accused persons and sentenced them.

16. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the

judgments of the courts below in convicting the petitioners - appellants -

accused and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment

for a period of two months.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_766_2016

17. Hence, it is considered fit to dismiss the revision confirming the

conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against the petitioners -

appellants - accused.

18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

conviction and sentence passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015

dated 25.02.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.165 of

2015 dated 25.06.2015 for the offence under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act against the petitioners - appellants - accused. The petitioners -

appellants - accused are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. If

the petitioners - accused failed to surrender, the trial court shall take steps in

accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

09th March, 2023 nsk.