THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2036 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2004 made in Crl.A.No.80 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, dated 17.5.2001 in C.C.No.529 of 2000. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 10.7.1998 at 7 p.m., one G.V. Chiranjeevi Rao, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Mobile Squad, Vizianagaram caught the accused at L. Kota while he was in possession of Whisky bottles of various companies, and arrested him and seized the contraband after taking samples. Basing on the report, a case in P.R.No.332/97-98 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act r/w 7-A & 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance initially as C.C.No.1495 of 1999 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court for Excise, Vizianagaram and subsequently, it was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S. Kota and again, it was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothavalasa and numbered as C.C.No.529 of 2000. The trial Court framed a charge against the accused for the offence under section 8(b)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.80 of 2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of nearly one month. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 1998 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of nearly one month, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2036 of 2004 10.3.2011