HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1553 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, B. Prasad, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2001 dated 10-08-2004, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition & Excise Cases, Nellore, for the offence under Section 34-A of A.P. Excise Act (for short “the Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 09-08-1993 at about 5-00 PM, PW-2 - Excise Inspector, Nellore along with Sub-Inspector, Excise Enforcement, Nellore and staff inspected M/s. Quality Wine Shop (hereinafter referred to as “Wine Shop” for brevity) located at Nellore and found 124 Roman Eagle Brandy bottles, which did not tally with the stock register, transport permit, invoice and list of adhesive labels. At the time of inspection, the revision petitioner (A-1), nowkarnama holder, was present in the shop. He did not explain about liquor bottles. He informed that those bottles have been purchased from Bhargava Wine Shop, Nellore. It was also found that account books were not properly maintained. A case in Crime No.155/92-93 was registered against the petitioner and accused No.2, nowkarnama holder and licensee of the Wine Shop respectively, for the offences under Sections 34(a) and 36(c) of the Act, arrested the petitioner and seized the liquor bottles, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the petitioner by separating the case against accused No.2, licensee of the shop, as he absconded. 3. For the charges framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 34(a) and 36(c) of A.P. Excise Act, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 apart from Ex.C-1 and material objects MOs.1 to 124. 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of the prosecution. 6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act alone and accordingly convicted him for the same sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Challenging the same, petitioner filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions saying that no independent witnesses are examined and that the petitioner was not the owner or possessor of the liquor seized or the Wine Shop and even according to the case of the petitioner, he was only a nowkarnama holder, as such, he is entitled to acquittal. 9. Both the Courts below, after carefully examining the entire evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act. As many as 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. No doubt, all of them are excise officials. But, the Courts below found their evidence to be acceptable. No illegality or any abnormality in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is brought to my notice. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference of this Court at this stage of revision, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was only a nowkarnama holder and accused No.2, who absconded, is proprietor of the Wine Shop from where the liquor was seized and the petitioner, who is an innocent servant, is convicted. 11. Considering all the circumstances and the fact that the offence has taken place in 1993 and no person is directly affected and only the society in general is affected due to the offence committed by the petitioner, I am inclined to release him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “PO Act”) by awarding compensation under Section 5 of the Act. 12. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with an undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. It is further directed that under Section 5 of the PO Act, the petitioner shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Nellore, along with execution of the bond under Section 4 of the PO Act, as referred above, within two months from today. In case, petitioner fails to execute the bond or deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- within two months, as ordered above, he shall undergo sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below. 13. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 1, 2010. NOTE: Dispatch the judgment immediately. (B/O) PV