Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 534 (AP)

M. Appala Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-14

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2006, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, challenging the judgment, dated 08.09.2008, where under the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, as such, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C. No. 290 of 2004, on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The accused faced charges under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act before the trial Court. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under 27(b)(ii) of the Act and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 28 of the Act. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The State, represented by Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam, filed a complaint before the trial Court alleging in substance that the complainant is a Drugs Inspector, appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act vide G.O.Ms. No. 670 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (L2) Department, dated 12.12.1988. He has jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and is authorised to launch prosecution under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 4. Basing on a telephonic complaint, dated 27.05.2003 against Mr. M.A. Raju (accused) regarding sale of drugs without licence, the complainant (LW-1) along with Drugs Inspector, Anakapalle (LW-2) and two mediators LW-3 Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao and LW-4 V. Surya Srinivasa Rao raided the premises of M/s. Gowri Clinic, situated at D. No. 2-17, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam on 28.05.2003. They found one person examining patients who disclosed his identity on questioning as Dr. M.A. Rao (accused), owner of Gowri Clinic. The clinic is in three rooms. The complainant and party found cartoon boxes containing drugs like sale packs, Physician samples and government hospital drugs. They found one person examining patients who disclosed his identity on questioning as Dr. M.A. Rao (accused), owner of Gowri Clinic. The clinic is in three rooms. The complainant and party found cartoon boxes containing drugs like sale packs, Physician samples and government hospital drugs. The government hospital drugs are meant for government institutions and hospitals for free supply and supposed to be available only in government institutions. The complainant questioned the accused regarding source of supply of drugs. The accused was unable to produce any purchase bills for the sale packs. He did not disclose the source of supply of the hospital drugs and Physician samples as required under Section 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He revealed that he is not holding any drug licence for storage of drugs. Hence, complainant seized the drugs (1-32) in the presence of Drugs Inspector, Anakapalle and mediators. The drugs particulars were entered in Form-16 and mediators report was drafted to that effect. The accused was present at the time of seizure and acknowledged the receipt of Form-16 and mediators report. The complainant vide memo, dated 29.05.2003 informed the seizure to the jurisdictional Court, which returned the property with a direction to produce along with the complaint. Thus, the accused stored the drugs in his premises without having any licence, as such, violated Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He further failed to disclose the source of supply, as such, contravened Section 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 5. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under the above provision of law and after appearance of the accused and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) by following the private warrant procedure, examined PW-1 and PW-2 and deferred the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 and then basing on the material available on record, framed charges under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, an opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine PW-1 and PW-2 and after that the complainant further examined PW-3. 6. Then, an opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine PW-1 and PW-2 and after that the complainant further examined PW-3. 6. Thus, on behalf of the complainant before the trial Court, PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.4 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.32 were marked. 7. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 8. The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and accordingly, convicted him and after questioning the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 9. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2006 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, which came to be dismissed on merits. 10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court, challenging the judgment, dated 08.09.2008 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision case, the point that arises for consideration is that as to whether the judgment, dated 08.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2006, on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment? POINT: 12. Sri Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that the learned appellate Judge did not look into as to whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 18(c) r/w Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. POINT: 12. Sri Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that the learned appellate Judge did not look into as to whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 18(c) r/w Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 was interested which was relied upon by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned appellate Judge without proper reasons. There was no evidence to show that the so-called drugs alleged to be seized were meant for sale. There was serious discrepancy with regard to time at which PW-1 secured PW-2 and PW-3. They did not testify as to the number of boxes that were found in the alleged premises of the accused. The complainant did not examine another mediator LW-4. The complainant did not look into the defence of the accused before the trial Court properly. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the judgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2020 and contended that when there is no evidence to prove the exclusive possession of the accused over the premises, conviction cannot be sustained. He would further submit that at any rate the judgment of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is not proper, as such, the judgment is liable to be set aside. 13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the accused was found physically by examining the patients when the raid party entered into the premises of the accused. By examining PW-1 to PW-3 and by getting marked Ex.P.1 to P.4, the complainant before the trial Court proved the case of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. Accused acknowledged the receipt of Form-16 and mediators report. He failed to account for the drugs that were found in his possession. His defence before the trial Court was not tenable. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 14. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused was running Gowri Clinic in the premises bearing Door No. 2-17, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 14. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused was running Gowri Clinic in the premises bearing Door No. 2-17, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Having received an oral complaint that the accused is indulging in selling drugs without proper licence, complainant secured PW-2 and PW-3 and LW-4 and conducted a raid and seized 32 cartoon boxes consisting of the government hospital drugs, drugs meant for Physician samples and other drugs and the accused did not account for the source of the drugs, etc. The complainant claimed that the seizure was reflected in Form-16 and also in the mahazarnama which was acknowledged by the accused. Hence, the contention of the complainant is that without having any licence whatsoever, he stored the drugs under M.O.1 to M.O.32 meant for sale and he failed to disclose the source of supply, as such, he violated Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 15. PW-1 deposed the facts in substance that having received a complaint from unknown person on 27.05.2003 that the accused is storing drugs without licence at his clinic at Baji Junction, on 28.05.2003, he along with LW-2-Drug Inspector, Anakapalle and two mediators K. Srinivasa Rao and V. Surya Srinivasa Rao, visited the clinic of the accused in Door No. 2-17, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The accused was found examining the patients. They revealed their identity. They searched the Gowri Clinic premises where he was examining the patients and found 32 varieties of drugs. They were hospital drugs not for sale, patient samples not for sale and sale box. They seized drugs 1 to 32 in Form-16 and mediators report was also drafted there. They signed in Form-16 and mediators report. They served copy thereof to the accused, who acknowledged. Ex.P.1 is the Gazette Notification under which PW-1 is authorized to launch prosecution. Ex.P.2 is Form-16. Ex.P.3 is the mediators report. Ex.P.4 is the endorsement of the Court on Ex.P.2. He informed the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, who directed him to produce the property at the time of complaint. He intimated to the Additional Director General, Drugs, about the seizure. Ultimately, he filed the complaint on 17.09.2003. Ex.P.2 is Form-16. Ex.P.3 is the mediators report. Ex.P.4 is the endorsement of the Court on Ex.P.2. He informed the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, who directed him to produce the property at the time of complaint. He intimated to the Additional Director General, Drugs, about the seizure. Ultimately, he filed the complaint on 17.09.2003. The accused stored the drugs without licence which is violative of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. During the course of search and seizure, he enquired the accused about the possession of the drugs and the accused did not respond about his possession which is violative of Section 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW-2, the mediator, he deposed that he is running a medical shop at Baji Junction in the name and style of Ramachandra Medical Shop. He prepared Ex.P.3 in the presence of Drugs Inspector at Appalaraju’s clinic on 25.08.2004 at 10-00 a.m. The drugs were recovered from the possession of the accused. M.O.1 to M.O.32 were the drugs taken by the Drugs Inspector. He affixed slip on the pack with his signature. The accused did not produce any licence. 17. PW-3, the Drugs Inspector, Anakapalle, who assisted PW-1, deposed that he assisted PW-1 from 10-00 a.m. to 2-30 p.m. at the premises of the accused on 28.05.2003. He prepared Form-16 to the dictation of PW-1, PW-2 and LW-4. PW-2 is the scribe of panchanama. He (PW-3) attested Form-16 by signing all the pages along with PW-1, PW-2 and LW-4. 32 items of the drugs were seized. Four items among them are the Physician samples, 19 items among them are the sale boxes and 9 items among them are government supply drugs. The accused failed to produce the source of supply of the seized drugs licence and purchasing bills, etc. PW-2 attested Form-16. 18. As seen from the evidence of PW-1 during cross examination, he approached the mediators at 9-45 a.m. on 28.05.2003 before proceeding to the scene of offence. According to the evidence of PW-2 during cross examination, the Peon of the complainant called him to go to the shop at 10-00 a.m. According to the evidence of PW-3 in cross examination, PW-1 requested PW-2 and V. Surya Srinivasa Rao about 9-45 a.m. to follow him. According to the evidence of PW-2 during cross examination, the Peon of the complainant called him to go to the shop at 10-00 a.m. According to the evidence of PW-3 in cross examination, PW-1 requested PW-2 and V. Surya Srinivasa Rao about 9-45 a.m. to follow him. Admittedly, there is a discrepancy with regard to the time at which PW-1 secured the presence of PW-2 and PW-3. The above said discrepancy, in my considered view, is not fatal to the case of the complainant. PW-2 is no other than the medical shop owner whose services were utilised by PW-1 to act as a mediator. PW-3 was a Drug Inspector at Anakapalle, whose services were also requested by PW-1 to assist him in conducting raid. 19. As seen from Ex.P.1, PW-1 was authorized to conduct raid at Visakhapatnam and he was authorized to launch prosecution. As seen from Ex.P.2, it contains the signatures of PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-4 and further the signature of the accused. The accused acknowledged the receipt of Ex.P.2 Form-16 by putting his signature and also by affixing his stamp as if he received copy i.e. Form-16 in four pages. So, the knowledge of contents of Ex.P.2 can be attributed to the accused. Similarly, as seen from Ex.P.3, the mediatornama, the accused received copy of the panchanama in three pages and he signed and affixed his stamp also. There is no dispute about the receipt of copies of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 by the accused by putting his signatures with stamps. So, the accused had knowledge of the contents of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 which disclose that the accused was running his clinic in Door No. 2-17, Baji Junction, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam and it consists of three rooms. 20. During cross examination of PW-1, he was called upon to say about the topographic particulars of the premises, as such, he testified in cross examination that the building consists of room facing towards road. There is vacant space at the terminal point of the building as well as compound wall of the building. There is a way in between the compound wall and the Hardware shop and that is the way to reach the clinic. There is one Anuradha Medical Stores in the building and it is not by the side of Hardware shop. The said medical stores belonged to the brother of the accused. There is a way in between the compound wall and the Hardware shop and that is the way to reach the clinic. There is one Anuradha Medical Stores in the building and it is not by the side of Hardware shop. The said medical stores belonged to the brother of the accused. There is a wooden partition which can be visualized, if anybody enters the room. He does not remember where a push door is appended to the wooden partition to get inside of the Doctor’s room. There is another door to the other side of the Doctor’s room followed by a varandah and a compound wall of the building. All the doors were kept open when search was conducted at 10-00 a.m. M.O.1 to M.O.32 were not kept inside the Doctor’s room, but, they were kept in the patients waiting room. He denied a suggestion that the accused entered into the premises after they sat in his room and then they briefed their purpose of visit. One boy was there and he did not enquire him whether he is a Compounder or someone else. He found three or four boxes on the bench. He did not enquire either Ayah or the Sweeper as he did not know them. He denied a suggestion that the persons who are inimically deposed against the accused planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 and gave complaint to him. He denied that keeping M.O.1 to M.O.32 in the premises cannot be construed as for selling of the property. He denied that he is deposing false. 21. Turning to the evidence of PW-2 in cross examination, he deposed that the accused has been running a clinic behind Hardware shop. Hardware shop is a part of complex. There is access all along the complex to go to complex. He did not observe the things in front room before entering into the Doctor’s room. He denied that he is deposing false. Coming to the evidence of PW-3 in cross examination, he deposed that the rear side of the door of the clinic was shut by that time they entered into the room. One has to push the door of the middle shop in order to enter inside the Doctor’s room. The accused himself opened the door of his room. Coming to the evidence of PW-3 in cross examination, he deposed that the rear side of the door of the clinic was shut by that time they entered into the room. One has to push the door of the middle shop in order to enter inside the Doctor’s room. The accused himself opened the door of his room. He denied that they planted those items to file a false case against the accused and accused has nothing to do with the seized items. 22. During the course of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused specifically admitted the raid conducted by the complainant along with PW-2, PW-3 and another mediator. He further admitted categorically about the drafting of the mahazarnama by PW-2. He further admitted categorically during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination questionnaire that he received copies of Form-16 and mediators report. The defence of the accused is that drugs were not recovered from his possession. He put forth a version in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that on that day he came to the clinic at 10-20 a.m. By then, the complainant along with party was sitting. He questioned them and they revealed their identity. He questioned them as to why they came to his clinic. They shown two boxes and stated that the said boxes belonged to him for which he denied. He denied the contents of the boxes. Then, the Drugs Inspector clerk brought K. Srinivasa Rao and V. Surya Srinivasa Rao. He does not know as to the contents written by them on the document. At 1-20 p.m. they handed over a paper and threatened to him to put his signature, as such, he put his signature. So, this is the version of the accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. 23. It is not suggested to PW-1 to PW-3 in cross examination that PW-1 to PW-3 threatened the accused to put his signature in Form-16 and mediatornama. On the other hand, the evidence goes to show that accused comfortably received copies thereof and put his signature and affixed his stamp. He did not raise his little finger voicing before any authority that his signatures were obtained by PW-1 to PW-3 by force. According to the defence of the accused before PW-1, the persons who are inimically deposed against him planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 which he denied. He did not raise his little finger voicing before any authority that his signatures were obtained by PW-1 to PW-3 by force. According to the defence of the accused before PW-1, the persons who are inimically deposed against him planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 which he denied. According to his defence before PW-3, the complainant party planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 which he denied. 24. It is to be noticed that as evident from the admissions made by the accused during the course of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, there is no dispute that the accused used to run his clinic in the premises bearing Door No. 2-17, Gowri Clinic, Baji Junction, Goapalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The evidence goes to mean that he had exclusive custody over the three rooms in which he is running a clinic. He admitted the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.32 from his clinic in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Therefore, the above answers spoken by the accused during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination may be taken into consideration according to Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C. He did not say anything in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that the persons, who are inimically deposed against him planted M.O.1 to M.O.32, as suggested to PW-1. He did not disclose in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that the complainant party planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 in his premises. Therefore, there is no dispute that the accused had exclusive possession over the premises in question. 25. Turning to the decision of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2020, it was a case where the prosecution witnesses 2 and 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and prosecution did not prove the exclusive possession of the premises with that of the appellant therein, as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused. When the matter was canvassed by way of appeal before the High Court of Telangana by the State, the appeal was dismissed appreciating the contention of the respondent that PW-2 and PW-3 turned hostile and complainant did not prove the exclusive possession of the premises with that of the respondent. When the matter was canvassed by way of appeal before the High Court of Telangana by the State, the appeal was dismissed appreciating the contention of the respondent that PW-2 and PW-3 turned hostile and complainant did not prove the exclusive possession of the premises with that of the respondent. The above facts obviously stood in a different footing from the facts of this case for the reason that in this case the accused never disputed his possession over the premises in question and never disputed about the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.32, but, put forth inconsistent versions before PW-1 and PW-3 that the persons, who are inimically deposed against him and the complainant party planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 respectively. 26. It is to be noticed that the defence of the accused is that by the time he went to his clinic, he found the complainant party and they shown two cartoon boxes and asked him as to how they are and he denied the contents and stated that they are not belonging to him. Here, the case of the complainant and the evidence adduced is that by the time the complainant party searched the premises, the accused was found sitting examining the patients. It is elicited from the mouth of PW-1 that there was a boy in the clinic of the accused. Further it was elicited from the mouth of PW-1 that there was a Sweeper in the clinic of the accused. Hence, in normal circumstances, no one would have any accessibility to the clinic of the accused before the accused came there. It is the case of the accused that PW-1 to PW-3 entered into his premises without his knowledge or consent. If that be the case, he has to probabalise how they gained entry into the premises even before arrival of the accused. The accused did not probabalise his contention by examining office boy or the Sweeper to say that PW-1 to PW-3 entered into the premises before his arrival. When the accused had exclusive control over his clinic, he cannot contend that the persons inimically deposed against him planted M.O.1 to M.O.32. His contention before PW-3 that the complainant party planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 is not tenable. If that be the case of the accused, the accused would not have signed in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. 27. When the accused had exclusive control over his clinic, he cannot contend that the persons inimically deposed against him planted M.O.1 to M.O.32. His contention before PW-3 that the complainant party planted M.O.1 to M.O.32 is not tenable. If that be the case of the accused, the accused would not have signed in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. 27. The topographic particulars elicited from the mouth of PW-1 go to prove that the accused had exclusive control over the three rooms in question. It is immaterial as to whether from where exactly they were seized. However, there is evidence of PW-1 that they were found at the patients’ waiting room. When the accused had exclusive possession over the premises in question, it is for him to explain as to how they were found in his premises. The accused miserably failed to probabalize his defence theory. 28. The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam as well as the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam rightly looked into various contentions put forth by the accused. There is cogent evidence adduced by the complainant that M.O.1 to M.O.32 were recovered from the premises of the accused on which he had exclusive possession thereof. 29. There is no dispute that under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the accused was not supposed to store M.O.1 to M.O.32 without having proper licence. The complainant proved the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.32 in the clinic of the accused and with what intention the accused stored the same is to be inferred from the proven facts and circumstances. The accused was running the clinic by then and he was even examining patients by the time the complainant conducted a raid. The accused was not supposed to store the government supply drugs which were supposed to be in the government hospital. The accused would not have stored M.O.1 to M.O.32 for fancy purpose. Under the circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the accused stored M.O.1 to M.O.32 for the purpose of sale. Apart from this, according to Section 18(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, every person not being the manufacturer, a drug if required shall disclose to the Drug Inspector from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. There is no dispute that the accused did not reveal the source of supply. Apart from this, according to Section 18(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, every person not being the manufacturer, a drug if required shall disclose to the Drug Inspector from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. There is no dispute that the accused did not reveal the source of supply. So, the allegations of the complainant which are categorically proved attracts essential ingredients of Section 18(c) which is punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Apart from this, they would further attract the essential ingredients of Section 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Both the charges were proved against the accused before the Court below beyond reasonable doubt. This Criminal Revision Case against the concurrent findings of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam as well as the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam deserves no merits and the judgment of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam cannot be said to be illegal or irregular. It does not suffer with any impropriety. 30. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 31. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 32. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 21.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.