ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), by the petitioner herein, who was the accused No.1 in C.C. No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta (for short, "the trial Court") and who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2006, on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram (for short, "the learned Additional Sessions Judge"), challenging the judgment therein, dated 28.12.2007, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court in C.C. No.62 of 2004, dated 24.07.2006. 2. The petitioner herein faced charge under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short, "the APP Act") before the Court below for which he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Felt aggrieved of the same, he filed Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed on merits. 4. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapeta Police Station, pertaining to Crime No.9 of 2004 for the offence under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Pedapeta, Vedapalem Village, Kothapeta Mandal. They used to live by manufacturing illicit arrack for selling purpose. On 20.01.2004 at about 05:00 PM, LW.6 Sri P. Eswarlu, SI of Police, Kothapeta conducted raid along with his staff i.e., LWs.1 to 3 namely R.V.N. Murthy, K. Rajamohana Rao and S.M.Pasha in the presence of LWs.4 and 5 - Madhunapanthula Satyanarayana Murthy and Sattiraju Adithya Kiran and arrested the accused near nidraganneru chettu situated at the burial ground. They also found another person by name Chodapaneedi Krishnakanth @ Chilakaraju, who was a juvenile, who absconded. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapeta seized two black coloured plastic tins from the possession of accused No.1. They also found another person by name Chodapaneedi Krishnakanth @ Chilakaraju, who was a juvenile, who absconded. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapeta seized two black coloured plastic tins from the possession of accused No.1. Each tin was consisting of 15 liters of arrack. The total arrack was 30 liters worth Rs.3,000/-. The Police seized the said arrack and aluminium vessels and Rs.500/-, after lifting samples for chemical analysis. Basing on the mediators report, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the aforesaid Crime under the provisions of law and took up investigation. During investigation, he forwarded the accused No.1 to the Court for remand. He also sent samples to the Chemical Examiner for Exercise, Kakinada through SDPO-AMP under a letter of advice. He received the Chemical Analysis report stating that the samples are of illicitly distilled liquor. Subsequently, he arrested the accused No.2 on 25.02.2004 and sent him for remand. A separate charge sheet is being filed before the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry (Juvenile Court) against A-3 who is a juvenile. 6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and after completing necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., a charge under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act was framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. 8. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which they denied the same. 9. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the petitioner herein (A-1) guilty of the charge under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act, convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Magistrate found the accused No.2 not guilty of the charge and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 10. The learned Magistrate found the accused No.2 not guilty of the charge and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 10. Challenging the said judgment, accused No.1 preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed on merits. 11. Challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the unsuccessful appellant (A-1) filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 12. Now in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 13. POINT: Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that PW.3 was a stock mediator to the Police, who used to support the case of the prosecution by just obliging himself to sign the mahazarnama at the request of the Police. The contraband which was alleged to be seized from the possession of the petitioner was not at all produced before the Court below. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is interested in nature. The learned Magistrate instead of acquitting the accused convicted them. The Court below failed to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the PO Act"). Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge also failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. In support of the contention that the prosecution did not produce the property, she would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram, 2019 (9) LAWS(SC) 109. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the event of the confirmation of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, sentence may be converted into fine. 14. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public prosecutor, sought to support the judgments of both the Courts below by contending that the evidence of PW.3 corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the Police duly lifted the sample and sent it for chemical analysis and Excise Authorities had every power to destroy the remaining contraband and the failure to produce the property before the Court cannot be a circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 15. PWs.1 and 2 are admittedly Prohibition and Excise Officials. 15. PWs.1 and 2 are admittedly Prohibition and Excise Officials. PW.3 is an independent witness, who claimed to be a Panchayat Secretary. The case of the prosecution is that the Prohibition and Excise Officials conducted raids on 20.01.2004 at 05:00 PM and found the present petitioner and others but the present petitioner could be caught hold of, who was in possession of illicit ID liquor as such after lifting samples they arrested the present petitioner. 16. Turning to the testimony of PW.1 he is Police Constable. He deposed that on 20.01.2004 at 05:00 PM he along with the SI of Police and other staff and mediators reached Chinnapayi near ganneru tree and found three persons. The other two persons absconded. They apprehended A-1, who was holding two plastic cans. On interrogation, accused revealed his identity. They found three aluminium vessels, one is big one, another is medium one and last one is small one and also one pipe. They found 15 liters of ID arrack each in two cans. They lifted one liter of ID arrack from each can in a separate plastic bottle. SI of Police got drafted mediators report which was attested. MOs.1 and 2 are the sample bottles. A-1 revealed the identity particulars of other persons. 17. PW.2, the SI of Police, spoken the facts as disclosed by PW.1. He testified about the raid conducted on 20.01.2004 at 05:00 PM along with his staff and mediators and noticing of three persons and that two persons absconded and they could detain A-1 and they interrogated him and found 15 liters of ID arrack. He lifted samples and affixing identity slips under the cover of mahazarnama. After returning to the station, they registered FIR. Ex.P-2 is the FIR. They forwarded A-1 to the Court for remand. He sent the samples to the chemical analysis. He has spoken about the subsequent investigation as regards arrest of A-2 and A-3. According to him, Ex.P-3 is the chemical analysis report. 18. PW.3, the mediator, testified that he at the request of Police on 20.01.2004 accompanied them and found three persons and Police apprehended A-1 and others absconded. A-1 was holding two plastic tins each consisting of 15 liters of ID arrack. PW.1 interrogated A-1 and lifted samples under the cover of mahazarnama and seized the contraband. 19. 18. PW.3, the mediator, testified that he at the request of Police on 20.01.2004 accompanied them and found three persons and Police apprehended A-1 and others absconded. A-1 was holding two plastic tins each consisting of 15 liters of ID arrack. PW.1 interrogated A-1 and lifted samples under the cover of mahazarnama and seized the contraband. 19. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW.1, accused elicited about the location of burial ground. He deposed that they reached to the scene of offence within five minutes. MOs.1 and 2 bears the signatures of the mediators and accused. They obtained thumb impression of accused No.1 on the mahazarnama. Identity slips were affixed on MOs.1 and 2. He denied that he is deposing false. 20. PW.2 during cross-examination denied that they affixed identity slips on the sample bottles recently. He denied that he is deposing false. 21. As seen from the evidence of PW.3 during the cross-examination he also denied the case of the accused. During cross-examination he deposed that Police called him at 04:40 PM. He categorically deposed that the present accused was involved in another crime also as such his evidence means that he had occasion to identify A-1 at the spot. He denied that he is deposing false. 22. It is to be noticed that under the provisions of APP Act, a person like PW.3, who belonged to the Revenue Department, is bound to assist the Police in detection of the illicit arrack cases. So, PW.3 cannot be branded as a stock witness to the Police. His evidence duly corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Defence of the accused is denial simplicitor. Admittedly, according to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, identity slips were affixed on MOs.1 and 2 and it bears the thumb impression of accused. The defence of the accused is that just before the evidence recently they were affixed. If that be the case, he has no explanation as to how he could put his thumb impressions on the identity slips on MOs.1 and 2 when he was facing trial before the Court below. So, virtually the defence of the accused is totally evasive. He failed to explain any circumstances how thumb impression of him could be found on the mahazarnama and identity slips on MOs.1 and 2. So, the defence of the accused is denial simplicitor and it is nothing but evasive. So, virtually the defence of the accused is totally evasive. He failed to explain any circumstances how thumb impression of him could be found on the mahazarnama and identity slips on MOs.1 and 2. So, the defence of the accused is denial simplicitor and it is nothing but evasive. Virtually, PWs.1 to 3 have no reason to depose false against the accused. 23. Turning to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution did not produce the property before the Court below, admittedly MOs.1 and 2 were sent to Chemical Analyst and according to Ex.P-3, chemical analysis report, the samples are of illicit ID liquor. 24. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan canvassed by petitioner arose under the provisions of NDPS Act. When the trial Court Judge convicted the accused, it was reversed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The State went for Appeal and the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the Appeal reversing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, Dealing with non production of the property under the NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that “if the seizure of the material is otherwise proved on record, which is not doubted or disputed, entire contraband material need not be placed before the Court. If the seizure is otherwise not in doubt, there is no requirement that the entire material ought to be produced before the Court”. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as he did not dispute his presence and his thumb impressions on MOs.1 and 2 and Ex.P-1. It is no doubt true that under the provisions of APP Act, the authorities therein had every power to destroy the contraband after lifting samples. Though the prosecution did not place any material to show what was happened to the property but the circumstances clearly proves that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused. There is no doubt about the seizure in view of the consistent evidence placed by the prosecution. So, in my considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan goes against the contention of the petitioner. 25. There is no doubt about the seizure in view of the consistent evidence placed by the prosecution. So, in my considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan goes against the contention of the petitioner. 25. As seen from the judgments of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta and learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, they rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. 26. Turning to the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of the confirmation of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, sentence may be converted into that of fine, such request cannot be considered because the punishment under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act should be with imprisonment as well fine. The Court below imposed the punishment duly looking into the provisions of Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the APP Act. The Court below imposed minimum punishment prescribed under law. Hence, this Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed against the petitioner (A-1). 27. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 28. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 12.01.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner (A-1) in C.C. No.62 of 2004, dated 24.07.2006, and report compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.