HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.854 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-sole accused was tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, R.R. District, in C.C.No.1470 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1997 (for short “the Act”). During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 were marked. But, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. The learned Magistrate, having been satisfied with the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of the Act, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 21.11.2002. As against the said judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.195 of 2002 on the file of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, and the learned Sessions Judge, after going through the evidence and perusing the judgment of the trial court, dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 18.06.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed before the trial court. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.04.1999 on information about the illegal transportation of I.D. liquor on the road situated opposite to S.B.H., Ghatkesar, the excise officials proceeded to the said spot, secured the presence of A.Ramulu and M.Chinna Lalaiah Goud (P.Ws.1 and 2) and found the accused coming on a scooter bearing No.ATU 4570 and on suspicion the Excise Sub Inspector (P.W.3) stopped the scooter and on search 270 I.D. Liquor sachets each sachet containing about 100 ml were found. After taking two samples, P.W.3 seized the liquor sachets along with the scooter under the cover of panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and registered a case against the accused. The said samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, who opined vide Ex.P.5 that the same is unfit for potable purpose. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The plea of the accused is of total denial. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Having looked into the evidence and also perused the judgments passed by the courts below, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of the Act. Therefore, I see no merits in this revision. 6. However, it is a fact that the alleged offence has taken place in the year 1999 and after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 18.06.2003, he was taken into custody and thereafter this Court granted bail to him by an order dated 20.06.2003. Thus, he has undergone a sentence of three days. In the light of the above, this Court takes a lenient view in the matter and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. 7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.854 of 2003 (Dismissed) 29th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 854 of 2003 DATE:29.07.2010 Between: Pratap Singh … Petitioner And State represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent