THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein being the accused Nos.6 to 8 were tried along with others in C.C.No.286 of 2000 by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os.1 to 9. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. Questioning the said judgment dated 09.10.2003 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2003 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge Vijayawada by his judgment dated 17.02.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.09.1995 at about 2.30 PM the police officials proceeded to the thatched house bearing D.No.2-80, Chitturivari Street, Kankipadu and served search notice on its owner i.e. A.1 in the case and entered into the house. There they found 28 card board boxes and four gunny bags containing different brands of whisky bottles in total 492 liquor bottles. Then the C.I. of Police arrested A.1 to A.3 in the said case as they were present in the said room and seized the liquor bottles. Thereafter the said liquor bottles were seized under the cover of mediators report and identity slips were affixed on the bottles. Thereafter on the confession made by the A.1 to A.3 the police visited the house of A.4 and there, after serving search notice, seized 20 card board boxes containing different brands of whisky bottles in total 240 bottles each 750 ML and arrested A.4. Subsequently on the confession made by A.4, the police raided the house of A.5 and the cattle shed of A.7 and there also they seized 240 liquor bottles. In that connection a case in Cr.No.150/94-95 was registered and after following the due procedure i.e. sending the samples to the public analyst and after receipt of the report who opined that the said samples are IML, the charge sheet was filed. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but however, requested t he court to take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence is concerned. He further contended that though initially the said sentence was mandatory, now in view of the amendment that was brought to Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, the said offence is made compoundable and at present there is no minimum sentence. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also looking into the record, and in view of the subsequent amendment brought to Section 8 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and as the petitioners have already paid the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- each, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed on the petitioners by the courts below for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. -------------- 10.11.2010 Kvsn