THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.344 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned judgment, dated 20.1.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Eluru, in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court i.e. Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Tadepalligudem, dated 23.09.2004 in C.C.No. 747 of 2000 imposing two years rigorous imprisonment against A2 and a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- was rejected and acquitted him of the charge under Section 8(e) of the A.P. Excise and Prohibition Act and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-was ordered to be refunded to him, and the imposition of sentence of two year rigorous imprisonment against A.1 was reduced to one year while confirming the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. 2. A.1 and A.2 are alleged to have been clandestinely carrying on sale of I.D.Arrack. That A.2 was getting the contraband from Lakshhmipuram and other places and A.1 was concealing the contraband in a secret place and was conducting sale thereof. 3. That on information on 15.8.1999 PW.5 Police Officer rushed to Errakaluva canal in the outskirts of village along with mediators and his staff where five polythene covers of illicit arrack of 200 litres worth Rs.12,000/- was found and the same was seized under cover of mediators report. That A.2 escaped from there while A1 was arrested. A.1 confessed that A.2 was supplying contraband and he was conducting the sale thereof. That samples of the contraband were drawn and sent to Analyst at Kakinada for analysis and report and on receiving report that the contraband was I.D. liquor, charge sheet was laid against A1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 8(e) of the Act. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and also M.Os 1 to 4 samples and M.O.5 the contraband containing five polythene bags. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked for the defence. 5. The trial court , taking into consideration, the chemical analyst report, other material objects and also the evidence of PWs 1,4 and 5, and other material on record, found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 8(e) of the Act and accordingly convicted them and imposed sentence on them as already stated in Para 1, supra. 6. Assailing the said conviction and sentence, A1 and A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Eluru who by his order dated 28.1.2005 allowed the appeal so far as A.2 is concerned , acquitted him of the charge under Section 8(e) of the Act and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be refunded to him. However, so far as A1 is concerned, the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year while confirming the find of Rs.10,000/- imposed on him. 7. As against the said judgment of the lower appellate court, A1 filed this criminal Revision Case questioning the validity thereof, primarily on the ground that both the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective. That both the courts below have failed to notice discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. That the evidence of PW.1, VAO, suffers from discrepancies and the same was relied upon, that both the courts below erred in not considering the evidence properly. PWs 2 and 3 mediators did not support the case of the prosecution. It is canvassed on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused that since the case was registered basing on Ex.P.1 mediator’s report, the said report lost its sanctity as the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution. 8. PW.1 is the Panchayat Secretary of Chodavaram, PW.4 is the Police Constable in Ananthapalli P.S. and PW.5 is the Sub-Inspector of Krishnalanka P.S. A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 ,4 and 5 discloses that they have corroborated each other supporting the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Ex.P.6 the chemical analysis report is to the effect that the contraband was I.D. liquor. Therefore, both the courts below appreciated the material brought on record in proper perspective. However, the part played by A2 was not clearly established. As such, the lower appellate court rightly acquitted A.2 for the offence under Section 8(e) of the Act. So far as case against A1 is concerned, apart from the evidence of PWs 1,4 and 5 coupled with ex.P.6 analyst report, his own confessional statement supported the case of the prosecution. The case is registered under Special Law i.e. Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition Act and as such, the confessional statement made by the accused before the Police Officer exercising powers under special law is admissible in evidence. 9. In the above facts and circumstances case, this revisional court is of the view that the lower appellate court has not committed any error or irregularly in passing the impugned judgment and as such the same is not liable to be interfered with, in any manner, by this revisional court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same stands dismissed. ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 09-04-2010 Stp