THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1347 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Madanapalli, Chittoor District in Crl.A.No.113 of 2003 dated 28.08.2003 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, Chittor District in C.C.No.79 of 2001 for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 2 Facts in brief are that on 27.07.2000 at about 1.30 PM, found the petitioner carrying a white plastic bag on his head at a distance of 2 furlongs west to Kuduricheemanapalli on the road leading to Ramasamudram. On seeing the excise officials, the petitioner tried to escape and was apprehended. On interrogation the petitioner disclosed that the bag contained liquor bottles. The contraband was seized then and there. In that connection a case in Cr.No.108/2000-01 under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act was registered and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3 The trial court took the case into cognisance for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and having analysed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. As against the said judgment dated 16.04.2003 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2003 and the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge Madanapalli, Chittoor District, as stated supra, by his judgment dated 28.08.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 4 Heard. 5 The appeal was dismissed on 28.08.2003 and this court granted bail to the petitioner on 09.09.2003. Thus the petitioner was in jail for a period of thirteen days. 6 In view of the fact that the said offence is of the year 2000 and as the petitioner was in jail for a considerable period of thirteen days, this court is of the view that the said period of detention is sufficient for the offence committed by him. The alleged offence took place in the year 2000 when the said Act was in force. Further, the A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 is not in existence as of now. 7 Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this court, without going into the merits of the case, holds that the said sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the appellate court is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 8 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010