Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 263 (AP)

Krishna Rao v. State Of A. P.

2003-02-18

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2003
DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed against the judgment dated 9-1-2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence dated 23-9-1999 in C. C. No. 1057 of 1996 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Guntur. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on 17-10-1993 at about 7. 30 p. m. , the house of the accused was searched by Excise Officials in the presence of punch witnesses and they found a brass vessel containing 82 sachets, out of them 13 sachets did not bear any mark of the district and the remaining sachets were found having stamp of Medak district. As per the Analyst report, the samples collected from out of those sachets contained diluted arrack. The plea of the accused is total denial. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 34 (f) of A. P. Excise Act (for short "the Act" ). The learned Magistrate sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The said conviction and sentence are confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in an appeal preferred by the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the present revision petition. ( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant contended that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the version put forward by the prosecution cannot be accepted. The discrepancies pointed out, in my considered opinion, are not major discrepancies. For seeking conviction under Section 34 (f) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused bottled any liquor for the purpose of sale. There is evidence of the punch witness PW-1 and the Excise Officials PW-2 and PW-4 showing that on the date of offence 82 sachets were found at the residence of the accused. ( 4 ) THE question to be considered is whether the accused stocked those sachets for the purpose of sale? If the evidence adduced by the prosecution satisfies the Court that the accused stocked those sachets for the purpose of sale, then the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed. ( 4 ) THE question to be considered is whether the accused stocked those sachets for the purpose of sale? If the evidence adduced by the prosecution satisfies the Court that the accused stocked those sachets for the purpose of sale, then the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed. It is in evidence that the accused was running a tea stall. It is also in evidence that he is running the tea stall in the front portion of his house. The brass vessel containing the sachets was not found in the said portion. On the other hand, it was found in another room of the house of the accused. Further, as per the version of the prosecution itself, the vessel containing the sachets was found tied with a cloth. In view of these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Courts below committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that those sachets found in a brass vessel tied with a cloth were kept by the accused for the purpose of sale. I am therefore of the opinion, that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are bad in law and liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (f) of A. P. Excise Act and accordingly acquitted him of the charge. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are set aside. The fine amount if already paid by the accused shall be refunded to him forthwith.