THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1551 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein were tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Proh. & Excise, Kadapa in C.C.No.409 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 7 A r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.4 came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. The said judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed by the trial court was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge at Kadapa while re-appreciating the entire evidence and taking the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while concurring with the said finding of the trial court dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 30.08.2010. Hence the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 27.08.2009 P.W.1 who was the Sub Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Kadapa was on patrol duty from about 4.00 p.m. onwards along with P.W.2 and another excise constables the petitioners were found in suspicious circumstances near Garundam bridge at a distance of about ½ K.M. from Lakshminarayanapuram and that the petitioners were holding plastic bags. After due precautions, P.W.1 apprehended the petitioners, examined the plastic bags, drew samples from the plastic bags and arrested the petitioners for being in possession of I.D. arrack. The analyst at Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the contraband contained I.D. Liquor, which is not fit for human consumption. Hence the charge. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not going to argue on merits and further submitted that the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than two weeks and this court may take lenient view. 4 Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5 In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners this court looked into the judgments of the courts below. From the calendar it is clear that the petitioners were arrested on the date of offence i.e. 27.08.2009 and thereafter they came out from the jail by virtue of bail granted by the trial court on 31.08.2009. Thus they were in jail for a period of about five or six days. After dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court on 30.08.2010 the petitioners were taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence and today this revision came up for admission. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners are in jail from the date of the judgment passed by the appellate court i.e. 30.08.2010 and thus they are in jail for a period of about seven days. 6 Having regard to the said sentence which the petitioners have already undergone and the offence alleged against the petitioners is trivial, this court is of the view that this revision can be disposed of at the stage of admission. 7 In the result, the Criminal Revision is disposed of reducing the said sentence of one year imposed on the petitioners by the courts below to that of the period, which the petitioners have already undergone and the petitioners shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other crime. In all other aspects, it is made clear that this revision stands dismissed. -------------- 06.09.2010 Kvsn