Mutyala Veera Swamy vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2557 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1563 of 2011
ORDER:

1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 22.07.2011 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Warangal, confirming the judgment dated 11.02.2011 in

C.C.No.587 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition & Excise, Warangal, wherein

and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 8 (b) (i) of A.P.P.Act, 1995, convicted

and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, in payment

of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

2 The accusation against the petitioner was that on 03.12.2004

at about 1.10 PM, the petitioner was found in possession of 26

polythene covers each cover containing two liters of I.D. Liquor in

the front room of his house. The same was seized under the cover

of panchanama-Ex.P.2. Samples were drawn and were sent to the

forensic science laboratory, which reported that the liquor is unfit

for human consumption. Hence the petitioner is liable for

punishment under Section 7 (A) r/w section 8 (e) of A.P.P Act,

1995.

3 Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of ID

liquor; except the official witness P.W.1 who is the Excise Sub-

Inspector; there is no other independent witness to prove the guilt

of the petitioner and that the sample was sent for analysis after

lapse of 12 days.

4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the sample was sent 12 days after the seizure is not acceptable

because the seals were intact and it was fit for chemical analysis.

5 As there was no motive attributable to the investigating

officer, who conducted search and seizure, though the panch

witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of the investigating officer

can be taken into consideration. Moreover, there is no delay in

registering the FIR, which was registered soon after the search and

seizure conducted on the same day. When the search and seizure

were proved clinchingly and with cogent and concrete evidence,

proof of ownership of the house pales into insignificance.

6 The evidence of P.W.1 clearly mentions the manner of

detection and recovery of contraband of the ID Liquor from the

possession of the petitioner corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2.

The prosecution has followed the procedure meticulously.

Therefore, I find no irregularity much less material illegality in the

case of the prosecution and accordingly this criminal revision case

is liable to be dismissed.

7 So far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the

Courts below is concerned, since the offence is of the year 2004

and since the petitioner was in jail for about a week, this Court is

inclined to take a lenient view against the petitioner.

8 Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed by the Courts

below is reduced to that of the period which the petitioner has

already undergone. Except the above modification, this criminal

revision case, in all other aspects, is dismissed.

9 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall

also stand dismissed.

------------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date:20.09.2023 Kvsn