THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.259 of 2005 Date:17-03-2011 Between: Therli Swamynaidu ………..Petitioner. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. ……….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.RC No.259 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submits that this case is covered under a decision of this Court rendered in Crl.A.Nos.1965 of 2002, 1962 of 2002, dated 12.9.2006. Therefore, he prayed that this criminal revision case may be disposed of on similar grounds. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the orders of the Crl.A.No.163 of 2004, dated 9.2.2005 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili in C.C.No.320 of 2001. The brief facts that lead to the filing of the case are that: The petitioner was tried before the lower Court for the offence punishable under Section 7-A read with Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) for carrying one polythin bag containing 50 sachets of I.D liquor on 1.9.2000 at about 6.00 p.m., at Pedabheemvaram village. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and M.O.1 was marked on behalf of the prosecution. On completion of trial, the accused was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7-A punishable under Section 8 (e) of the Act in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.163 of 2004 before II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvatipuram and the learned Sessions Judge passed a judgment dated 9.2.2005 confirming the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Challenging the said judgment, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submit that the offence falls under Section 8 (e) of the Act. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7-A punishable under Section 8 (e) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Petitioner herein was found in possession of I.D liquor of 50 sachets (5 ltrs) and the offence falls under Section 8 (b) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the lower Court has already been paid and a direction may be issued to set off the period of sentence already undergone by the accused instead of the sentence as imposed by the lower Court as stated supra and the same may be compounded as per G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 25.7.2000 as envisaged by the A.P Compounding Offences Rules, 2000. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the said amendment, the officers of the department are empowered to compound the said offences. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the above amendment to the Rules, the petitioner may be given liberty to file an application for compounding the said offence as the offence is compoundable on payment of Rs.200/-. As per the Rules, following are the officers, who are empowered to compound the offences: 1. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and Collector and District Magistrate, 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, 3. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent. As such the judgment of the Court below imposing punishment for a period of one year is set aside. But, however, the petitioner shall approach the authorities i.e., Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Vizainagaram District for compounding the offence as contained in the A.P. Compounding Offences Rules, 2000 by filing an application on payment of compound fee. The fine amount, which was imposed by the lower Court has already been paid by the petitioner shall be given set off. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Date:17.3.2011 mrb