THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1924 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Badvel, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, alleging that on the raids conducted by them on 10.02.2000, at about 8.30 am., they found the accused bent down stirring something with his right hand near thorny bushes situated in the forest, two kilometers east of Rekalakunta village. On seeing the raid party, when he tried to run away, he was surrounded and detained, and that, on verification of the scene of offence, a mud pot with 30 litres of F.J. wash in it for distillation of I.D. liquor was found and on interrogation, the accused revealed his identity particulars and a sample was drawn from the F.J.wash and sent for chemical analysis, where it was found that the same is fit for distillation. The said charge sheet was taken on file as C.C.No.325 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked, besides M.O-1. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were marked. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 31.10.2002, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2002 and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kadapa, by his judgment, dated 26.10.2004, dismissed the appeal, but, however, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence of imprisonment of one year to six months, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about two weeks and requested this Court to take a lenient view and acquit the petitioner. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 26.10.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 11.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for about two weeks. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act imposed on the petitioner-accused by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa, in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2002, vide his judgment, dated 26.10.2004 is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR