THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2134 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners-accused against the judgment, dated 30.11.2004, made by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Crl.A.No.37 of 2004, confirming the judgment dated 29.3.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri, in C.C.No.120 of 2001. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1-P & E Inspector, Venkatagiri along with his staff including P.W.2/P& E Sub-Inspector, Venkatagiri, while conducting raids on 4.1.1999 in the early hours at 4 a.m., near Telugu Ganga Bridge, Kammapalli, found the petitioners-accused moving with plastic cans in their hands. On seeing the raid party, when the petitioners-accused tried to run away, the raid party detained them. On verification, the raid party found the plastic cans containing two litres of I.D. Liquor in each can. On being questioned, the petitioners-accused revealed their identity particulars. Then the raid party took samples of arrack into three 180 ml. Bottles from three cans. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused were arrested and the property was seized under the cover of Special Report and a case in P.R.No.47/98-99 was registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.120 of 2001. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioners-accused guilty of the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to suffer S.I. for three months each. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.37 of 2004 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. On re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioners filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioners were in jail for a period of one month. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners-accused, I feel that the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 1999 and the petitioners-accused have been wandering around the Courts since 1999, and in view of the fact that the petitioners were in jail for a period of one month, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act against the petitioners-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act imposed against the petitioners-accused in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2004, by judgment dated 30.11.2004, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners have already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine amount. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2134 of 2004 10.3.2011