THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.86 OF 2006. DATED:25-06-2010 Between: S.Somu …Petitioner-accused And The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban Excise Police Station, Chittoor, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.86 OF 2006. ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 09-01-2006, in Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 14-12-2004 at about 12.15 P.M., the Prohibition and Excise Inspector along with Excise Sub-Inspector, his staff and mediators conducted raids and during raids, they found the accused at Kothapalle carrying one black motor tube on his head and on seeing the Excise police officials, he ran away. Thereafter, Sub Inspector examined the bag and found one tube containing 50 litrs of I.D. liquor. He drawn 180 ml of liquor and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner, who after analysis opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for portable purpose. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. A charge under Section 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 6 and M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Chittoor, found the accused guilty of the charge and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for six months, vide judgment, dated 21-11-2005, in C.C.No.144 of 2005. On appeal by the accused, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, vide impugned judgment. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of the two Courts below are correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to show that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act, that the procedure for search and seizure have not been followed, that the accused was not identified by anybody and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. 9. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that 50 litres of I.D.liquor was seized and they identified the accused as the person who ran away, that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that they are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 10. Revision Jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal or improper or not based upon any evidence, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. According to P.W.1, rubber tube containing I.D. liquor was brought from the house of the accused. Therefore, he was not present when the accused was carrying I.D. liquor on 14-12-2004 at about 12.15 P.M. At the time of seizure of property, the accused was not present. Similarly, he has not informed the name of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 does not reveal that it is the accused, who was carrying I.D.liquor. 12. P.W.2, who is the Excise Sub Inspector stated that when they reached Kothapalli village, one person was found carrying a bag in his hand and on seeing them, he ran away. The mediators identified the accused who ran away. He did not identify the accused as the person who ran away on the date of incident. Therefore, his evidence is also not much helpful to the case of the prosecution with regard to identity of the accused. 13. P.W.3 turned hostile and she did not identify the accused as the person who ran away from the scene of offence. 14. When the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the person carrying I.D. liquor, he cannot be convicted. That aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the two Courts below. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 09-01-2006, in Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The petitioner-accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 8(e) of A.P.P. Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-accused shall be returned to him. --------------------- K.C.BHANU DATED: 25-06-2010 Hsd.