THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1188 of 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner was tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, (Proh. & Excise) Guntur in C.C.No.2097 of 1997 for the offence punishable under section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. Having analysed the entire evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate, by his judgment dated 30.08.2000 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Questioning the said judgment the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.492 of 2003 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 21.07.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.12.1996 at about 6.40 pm, P.W.2 – Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector along with his staff found the petitioner standing with a white polythene bag in his hand containing 108 I.D. arrack sachets each containing 100 ml of arrack at Darga Centre in Etukuru road near Nallacheruvu and arrested the petitioner under the cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama. Thereafter two sample sachets seized from out of the total stock were sent to the Chemical examiner, who after analysis gave a report opining that the said sachets contain I.D. Liquor. After completion of the entire investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perusing the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the courts below are perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and hence no interference is called for and accordingly the revision is dismissed. However, from the record it appears that the appeal was dismissed on 21.07.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the same day and it is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 20.08.2003, the petitioner came out from the jail. Thus, the petitioner is in jail for about one month. Apart from that the alleged offence took place in the year 1995 when there was prohibition. Though initially the offences under the A.P. Prohibition Act are not compoundable, subsequently by way of amendment the said offence is made compoundable. 5 In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year as imposed by the courts below on the petitioner to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 29.07.2010 Kvsn