THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.911 of 2008 DATED: 06-04-2010 JUDGMENT: The sole accused in N.D.S.C.No.50 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar is the appellant herein and he assails the judgment, dated 14-07-2008, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 22 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The graveman of the charges against the accused is that: Firstly, on 10-05-2003 the accused found conducting sale of toddy in the Toddy shop situated at Bokkalakunta of Kalwakurthy without any licence and mixed with diazepam and Chloral Hydrate and on the same day the deceased-Parvathalu consumed toddy and subsequently he got problem in health and died. Thus the accused committed the offence under Section 37-A of the A.P.Excise Act. Secondly, on 11-05-2003 the Excise officials found the accused conducting sale of toddy at Bokkalakunta of Kalwakurthy without any licence or permit and the said toddy was adulterated and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused is a licensed toddy vendor at Kalwakurthy and the shop at Raghupathipet road, and that he was also running a toddy shop at Nallakunta of Kalwakurthy, without prior permission from the competent authority. On 10-05-2003 at 14.00 hours the deceased-Parvathalu, accompanied by P.W.1-S.Yadaiah and P.W.10-Ette Seenu, went to the toddy shop of the accused situated at Bokkalakunta and purchased four bottles of toddy, out of which the deceased consumed three bottles of toddy and the said Seenu consumed one bottle and thereafter the said Seenu went away and the deceased-Parvathalu picked up quarrel with Allaji on some petty issue. In the meanwhile, the said Thirumalaiah and Seenu intervened and pacified the deceased and Allaji and separated them. While the deceased was proceeding towards his house, he lost control over his body and fell down on the ground by facing downwards and later on he died on the spot with the influence of the adulterated toddy. 4. Based on a written complaint presented by the brother of the deceased, P.W.12-Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the First Information Report to the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, investigation was taken up, witnesses were examined, scene of offence and inquest panchanama were conducted and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Further, on 11-05- 2003 P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police inspected the toddy shop of the accused, seized two toddy samples of 750 ml, including M.O.1, under cover of Ex.P8- panchanama before the mediators and other bottle was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and chemical examiner’s report was received stating that the toddy was adulterated with diazepam. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. It is his further submission that the alleged mediators, in whose presence panchanama was drafted, were not examined. However, the said submissions are opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. Having considered the said submissions and also on perusing the evidence of P.Ws1 to 12, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the appellant is tried for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22 (a) of the Act and also under Section 37-A of the A.P.Excise Act. The Court below found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 22 (a) of the Act alone but acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 37-A of the A.P.Excise Act. The said evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, clearly establishes that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22 (a) of the Act. Therefore, I do not see any merits in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than ten days as an under-trail prisoner. Having considered the said submission, the said sentence of six months imposed by the trial Court is reduced to that of the period already undergone, however enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. The additional fine amount, which has been imposed now, shall be paid by the appellant in the Court below within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to pay the said fine amount, he shall undergo the entire imprisonment, as imposed by the Court below. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 06th April, 2010. Tsy