Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 395 (AP)

Pothabathula Abbulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-06

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2021
JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - A raid was conducted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Kakinada along with his staff on a thatched house in Bhirawapalem village, where accused Nos.1 to 3 were found conducting liquor and arrack business without permit or license and about 20 lts of I.D liquor in a white plastic can with another 50 lts of ID liquor in three black plastic cans were found. Apart from this, four cardboard boxes containing about 92 bottles of Rum, 3 bottles of 180 ml Whisky and 8 bottles of 375 ml Whisky were found. On the basis of recovery of the above alcohol, Crime No.32/2001-02 was registered against eight accused persons for the offences under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Thereafter, the crime was taken up as C.C.No.395 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram. During the course of the trial, Accused No.3 had passed away and the case abated against Accused No.3. The case against Accused Nos.5 and 8 were separated and registered as a fresh case vide C.C.No.373 of 2002. Trial was taken up for Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. After the trial, the trial Judge found that the accused were not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and acquitted them in relation to the said offence. However, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each after setting of the period of detention, already undergone by the Accused Nos.1 and 2. 2. Aggrieved by the same, Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.A.No.91 of 2004 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. This appeal was dismissed on 17.10.2005. The Accused no. 1 and 2 have now filed the present revision case. 3. Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would raise a preliminary issue that the judgment of the appellate Court requires to be set aside on a short ground. He submits that the trial Judge had acquitted the petitioners for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. He submits that the trial Judge had acquitted the petitioners for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. There was no appeal from the prosecution. In the appeal filed by the petitioners against the conviction under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, the appellate Judge had found the petitioners guilty of the charge under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. He submits that this would show clear non application of mind as there was no appeal against any conviction under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, and the appeal was only against the conviction under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. 4. Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, making submissions on the merits of the case, would submit that the raid was allegedly conducted in the presence of P.W.3, who was the mediator. It is submitted that P.W.3 had turned hostile and refused to corroborate or affirm the mediator report and the factum of the raid. It is submitted that in view of the refusal of P.W.3 to corroborate the mediator report and in view of the hostile evidence of P.W.3, no recovery of illicit alcohol can be proved. In the absence of such proof, the petitioners cannot be convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 100 of Cr.P.C and a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported as T.Subbanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) CriLJ 2150. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that both the trial Court and the appellate Court while considering the aspect of non corroboration of mediator report by P.W.3, had misdirected themselves by holding that such non-corroboration is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the evidence of the official witnesses would be sufficient for accepting the recovery of the illicit alcohol. 6. The appellate Judge relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625 to hold that even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C. in view of the presumption under illustration (e) of Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act. In that case, the offences took place in Pune and certain articles were recovered from the Accused in a search conducted in Mumbai. The recovery of the articles was crucial to prove the circumstantial case against the accused as there was no direct evidence available against the accused. The defence argued that the search and recovery of the articles was in violation of the provisions of Section 100 (4) and Section 166 (3) & (4) Cr.P.C., on the ground that the panch witness was not from the locality where the search was carried out and had been brought from Pune for a search to be conducted in Bombay. This objection was overruled on the ground that the evidence of such panch witness cannot be set-aside only on the ground that he was not from the locality as his testimony could not be discredited during the cross examination. It is not clear as how the said judgement would apply to the facts of the present case which revolves on the effect of the panch witness turning hostile. 7. In the present case, the panch witness had turned hostile and as such, the seizure of illicit liquor is not proved. The further evidence by the members of raiding party, in the absence of corroboration from the panch witness, would not be acceptable. 8. Further, the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited in the appeal, by the revision petitioners, being Ganjamker Narayana vs. State of A.P., (2005) 3 ALT(Cri) 1 (A.P.) , Mudavath Mothia vs. State of A.P.,2002 1 ALT 437 , T.Subbanna vs. The State of A.P., (2003) CriLJ 2150, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2002) 1 ALD(Cri) 347 (A.P) and Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kovvur vs. Madaparthi Srinivasulu, (2004) 2 ALD(Cri) 366(A.P.) , were cases where seizure of articles was not accepted by the Courts on account of discrepancies or lack of panch witness at the time of seizure. Conviction of the accused on the basis of such evidence would not be appropriate. 9. The Petitioners herein have been acquitted for the offence under section 34 (a) (i) of the A.P. Excise Act. The appeal was against the conviction under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. There was no appeal before the appellate judge against the acquittal of the Petitioners under section 34 (a) (i) of the A.P. Excise Act. The Petitioners herein have been acquitted for the offence under section 34 (a) (i) of the A.P. Excise Act. The appeal was against the conviction under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. There was no appeal before the appellate judge against the acquittal of the Petitioners under section 34 (a) (i) of the A.P. Excise Act. The appellate judge convicted the petitioners under the A.P.Excise and did not convict the petitioners under the A.P. Prohibition Act. In the circumstances the conviction of the petitioners under the A.P. Prohibition Act does not appear to have been confirmed by the appellate judge and is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram in C.C.No.395 of 2001, as confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2004, dated 17.10.2005 are set-aside. 11. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.