JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment, dtd. 3/2/2010 in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru ("Additional Sessions Judge" for short), whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant Nos.1 to 3, confirming the conviction and sentence, dtd. 17/10/2007 imposed against the appellant Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.7 of 2006, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru ("Chief Judicial Magistrate" for short). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, in C.C.No.7 of 2006, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (originally corresponding to C.C.No.298 of 2005, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru), is that on 19/12/2004 in between 5-00 p.m. and 6-00 p.m., P.W.2 along with his staff and mediators found A.1 to A.3 involved in manufacturing of arrack in violation of A.P. Prohibition Act, without any licence or permit. P.W.2 found A.1 sitting at a live hearth and raising fire in the hearth and A.2 exchanging hot water to cold water on the condenser and A.3 putting all the cans in one place. On seeing P.W.2 and his staff, A.1 to A.3 tried to ran away. P.W.2 with the assistance of his staff apprehended A.1 to A.3 and interrogated them in the presence of panchas, P.W.1 and another person. P.W.2 seized 30 liters of F.J. Wash contained in 50 liters capacity boiler Aluminum vessel and one receiver, one mud pot with two liters of I.D. Liquor and one 20 liters capacity Aluminum vessel with water. Four plastic cans of ten liters capacity total 40 liters of I.D. Liquor, one plastic mug and one 10 liters capacity empty black plastic can under the cover of mediators report. P.W.3 collected four samples each 300 ml. from seized four black plastic cans. P.W.3 also collected 300 ml. of hot F.J. Wash from boiler and 300 ml. from receiver pot. P.W.2 seized sample bottles and 5 cans. P.W.3 collected four samples each 300 ml. from seized four black plastic cans. P.W.3 also collected 300 ml. of hot F.J. Wash from boiler and 300 ml. from receiver pot. P.W.2 seized sample bottles and 5 cans. P.W.2 destroyed the remaining wash from boiler vessel and other material seized with the permission of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kakinada, under the cover of Ex.P.4- attested copies of orders. P.W.2 forwarded the samples to Laboratory for analysis. The analysis report, Ex.P.3, shows that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor injurious to health and other sample is fermented wash fit for distillation. P.W.2 forwarded the appellants/A.1 to A.3 to the Court for the purpose of remand. On completion of investigation, P.W.2 filed charge sheet against the appellants/A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Sec. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 4. Originally, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, took cognizance under Sec. 8(e) r/w 7(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act and after examination of the accused under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), framed a charge under Sec. 8(e) r/w 7(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked. During Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they were implicated falsely. 5. During the course of trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked. During Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they were implicated falsely. Later, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, on considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the charge against the accused, but the accused ought to have received punishment more severe than the Court is empower to impose, as such, submitted the proceedings to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sec. 325 of Cr.P.C. Before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the instance of the accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recalled and cross examined and later the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both sides, came to a conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the accused, as such, convicted them under Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning A.1 to A.3 about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the charge. 6. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 filed the Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, which came to be dismissed on merits. Further felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Therefore, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point for determination is whether the judgment, dtd. 3/2/2010 in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is legally sustainable under law and facts and whether it suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point:- 8. Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel, representing M/s.G. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, would canvass a contention that P.W.1 was a revenue employee who was in the cadre of Village Secretary and he was indulging in acting as mahazar witness in the Prohibition and Excise cases, as such, he was interested witness. Point:- 8. Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel, representing M/s.G. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, would canvass a contention that P.W.1 was a revenue employee who was in the cadre of Village Secretary and he was indulging in acting as mahazar witness in the Prohibition and Excise cases, as such, he was interested witness. The Prohibition and Excise party did not secure any independent witnesses to witness the occurrence. The procedure as contemplated under Sec. 100 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C." for short) was not followed and it was violated by the investigating officer. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court basing on the interested testimony of the witnesses maintained the conviction. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would rely upon the orders of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.1758 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Case No.1691 of 2006. However, he would further submit that in the event of confirmation of the judgment of the appellate Court for any reasons, this Court may consider to reduce the term of imprisonment as of now the Revision Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are aged about 60 years. 10. Smt. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1 being an employee in the revenue department was bound to assist the Excise Police in view of the provisions of the Act and it was rightly dealt with by both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. has no application because the offence in question was detected in open place when A.1 to A.3 were manufacturing I.D. Liquor. All these aspects were rightly considered by both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, as such, the Criminal Revision Case liable to be dismissed. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners obviously stand in a different footing. 11. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he is a Village Secretary, Bhogapuram. According to him, on 19/12/2004 at 5-00 p.m., at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Eluru Excise Station, he accompanied along with another mediator to the Government poramboke land, situated near the coconut garden of Kilaru Sitharamaiah, at a distance of 1 K.M. away to Bhogapuram. 11. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he is a Village Secretary, Bhogapuram. According to him, on 19/12/2004 at 5-00 p.m., at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Eluru Excise Station, he accompanied along with another mediator to the Government poramboke land, situated near the coconut garden of Kilaru Sitharamaiah, at a distance of 1 K.M. away to Bhogapuram. They reached by there by 6-00 p.m. and found A.1 to A.3 were manufacturing I.D. arrack on a live still. There was oven upon which there was a vessel of fermented jaggery (F.J.) wash in which small mud pot was hung and also a water vessel on the big vessel of F.J. wash with burning oven. The accused tried to escape on seeing them and the excise party detained them. They confessed about the manufacturing of I.D. arrack with F.J. wash. They found 4 tins with 10 liters of I.D. arrack in each tin, F.J. Wash in a big vessel of about 30 liters and 2 liters of I.D. arrack in a small mud pot. Sub-Inspector destroyed the F.J. Wash and poured with two liters of I.D. arrack in another tin and lifted 300 ml. I.D. arrack from each of 5 cans and also F.J. wash into bottles, sealed and seized them after pasting identity slips under the cover of mahazar. The signatures and left thumb impressions of the accused were obtained on the slips and pasted on the sample bottles. Accused were arrested under Ex.P.1. S.I. seized I.D. Liquor and M.O.1 to M.O.6. He also seized and destroyed pots. 12. The prosecution examined P.W.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, whose evidence is consistent with the evidence of P.W.1. He spoke of to the fact that he secured P.W.1 and another person as mediators and during the course of raid, the present case was detected. He spoke of the factum of A.1 to A.3 preparing I.D. Liquor. His evidence is totally consistent with the evidence of P.W.1. According to him further, after returning to the police station, he registered the mahazar, as a case in Crime No.224 of 2004-05 and issued original FIR to the concerned and forwarded the accused to the Court for remand. He also obtained the proceedings under Ex.P.4 ordering destruction of the property, as such, property was destroyed. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 13. He also obtained the proceedings under Ex.P.4 ordering destruction of the property, as such, property was destroyed. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 13. This Criminal Revision Case is against the concurrent findings of both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The scope of this Criminal Revision Case is limited. This Court has to look as to whether there was any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in maintaining conviction of the accused. 14. Firstly, line of the contention of the revision petitioners is that P.W.1 was interested in the case of the prosecution being a person who acted as a mediator and that he was acting as mediator in several cases. As evident from the cross examination part of P.W.1, there was nothing suggested that he was a stock mediator to the Prohibition and Excise police. The manner in which P.W.1 was secured as a mediator along with another mediator was consistent through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The defence of the accused before P.W.1 was denial simplicitor. They contended that he did not act as a mediator and that he did not accompany the excise police and they did not detect any raid and that nothing was found by them and that he was not at all present. It was categorically denied by him. 15. Turning to the evidence of P.W.2 also, the defence of the accused was denial simplicitor. During cross examination P.W.2 deposed that he tried to secure local inhabitants of locality, but none were available. 16. It is to be noted that the offence in question was happened in a poramboke government land. Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C. runs as follows: Sec.100 persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (1) Whenever any place liable to search of inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. 17. Absolutely, it is a case where the offence in question was detected far away from the village that too in bushes which were located in government poramboke land. Thus, the compliance of Sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. does not arise. 18. Turning to both the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Criminal Revision Case No.1785 of 2005 arose with a contention that the Court framed the charge under Sec. 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Prohibition and Excise Act and convicted them, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Apart from this, it is a case where in particular premises the accused were found in possession of I.D. liquor and the place was searched. Thus, obviously, the Criminal Revision Case No.1785 of 2005 cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Similarly, Criminal Revision Case No.1691 of 2006 also dealt with a situation that in the village there was an auto transporting the liquor bottles and on factual analyzation for non-compliance of Sec. 100(4) Cr.P.C., the Criminal Revision Case was allowed. 19. As this Court already pointed out that the place of offence was located far away from the village in government poramboke land in bushes which was an open place. Hence, those two Criminal Revision Cases are not coming in any way to help the present Revision Petitioners. 20. Now, this Court has to look into as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is liable to be disbelieved. As seen from Sec. 28 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 officials of all departments of government and of all local bodies shall be legally bound to assist in prohibition or police officer in carrying out the provisions of this Act. Now, this Court has to look into as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is liable to be disbelieved. As seen from Sec. 28 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 officials of all departments of government and of all local bodies shall be legally bound to assist in prohibition or police officer in carrying out the provisions of this Act. Thus, on the date of offence there was a statutory obligation on the part of P.W.1 to assist the Prohibition Police or regular police. So, when such a statutory is cast upon P.W.1, his evidence cannot be branded as interested. Absolutely, nothing was brought out during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 that he was acting as a stock mediator in several cases. 21. The defence of the accused was denial simplicitor. Ex.P.1 contains the purported signatures and thumb imprisons of the accused. There was no defence before P.W.1 and P.W.2 that their signatures or thumb imprisons were obtained with any force. Absolutely, the entire case of the prosecution was properly appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The way in which they have appreciated the evidence cannot be said to be illegal or irregular. 22. Under the circumstances, on facts the prosecution was able to prove the fact that A.1 to A.3 were caught hold of red- handedly while they were preparing I.D. Liquor. Though several contentions were raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that property was not produced, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly negatived the contention of the appellants. According to Ex.P.4-proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kakinada, the property was ordered to be destroyed and accordingly, it was destroyed. There is no dispute that according to the chemical analyst, the samples were of I.D. Liquor and F.J. wash. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 23. There is no dispute that according to the chemical analyst, the samples were of I.D. Liquor and F.J. wash. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 23. Turning to the contention of the Revision Petitioners that this Court may reduce the imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this Court would like to make it clear that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, at the time of disposal arrived at a conclusion that the accused has to be punished with more imprisonment than the learned Special Judicial Magistrate was empowered to impose and submitted proceedings to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, as evident from the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate only rigorous imprisonment of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each was imposed. Hence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also took a lenient view. Under the circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to reduce the term of imprisonment. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dtd. 3/2/2010 in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 25. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Sec. 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 6/3/2024 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellants/accused and to report compliance to this Court. 26. The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the order to the trial Court on or before 6/3/2024. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.