THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1041 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Lakkisetty Satyam ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1041 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 24.06.2004 delivered by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.196 of 2002, modifying conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Excise, Guntur in C.C.No.2784 of 1997 dated 17.07.2002, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay minimum fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 8(B)(2) of A.P. Prohibition Act, to suffer RI for six months while keeping the fine clause intact. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 26.03.1997 at 8.00 a.m during town rounds, P.W.1 Prohibition and Excise Inspector along with P.W.3 another Excise personnel and others apprehended the revision petitioner/accused at Mangalagiri railway gate while he was in possession of two polythene gunny bundles, that the appellant attempted to escape but was stopped, that he admitted of possessing liquor bottles; that P.W.3 was sent for mediators, but none turned up, that P.W.1 verified the polythene gunny bags one gunny bag of yellow colour and the other bag of white colour each of which contained 32 bag piper whisky bottles of 750 ml capacity and hence the revisioner committed the alleged offence. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court modified the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as referred whereas aggrieved by the modification of conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has filed this revision. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below. Further, it is a case of 1997 and ever since the petitioner has been wandering around the courts concerned and in that connection he might have lost his valuable part of life and money and also must have otherwise suffered to a great extent, particularly on account of the conviction and sentence imposed. Hence, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment of four (4) months from rigorous imprisonment of one year, while keeping the fine clause intact. Subject to the above observations, the criminal revision case is disposed of. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1041 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.