HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.422 of 2004 DATE:08.06.2010 Between: Katamaraju Ediga Sankar Goud … Petitioner and The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.422 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-A.1 along with another was tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, in C.C.No.38 of 2002, for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”). During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 23 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. After analyzing both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, by judgment dated 07.08.2003. As against the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.90 of 2003 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by judgment dated 21.01.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as arrayed in C.C.No.38 of 2002. 3. Facts, in brief, are that on credible information that A.1 was secretly doing Chloral Hydrate business at his house, on 18.08.2001 the Excise officials visited his house and found 350 kgs of Chloral Hydrate in 10 blank fibre drums, 24 packets of Chloral Hydrate Powder and other substances useful for preparation of Chloral mixture and drawn samples for chemical analysis. Subsequently, they arrested A.1 and seized the property in the presence of mediators, under the cover of panchanama. Basing on the confessional statement of A.1, they proceeded to Navatha transport, Kodumur, on the same day, and conducted search of godown in the presence of A.2 and mediators and found 280 kgs of Chloral Hydrate in 8 black fibre drums and drawn samples of Chloral Hydrate from the drums for chemical analysis and seized the contraband and arrested A.2 under the cover of Panchanama. Basing on the panchanama, the Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Kodumur, registered a case in P.R.No.20/2001-2002 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer, Kodumur, filed charge sheet. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1 that the lower appellate court erred in remanding the matter to the trial court for the purpose of marking the analyst report as an exhibit. It is his further contention that the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has not filed any application requesting the lower appellate court to get the analyst report marked as an exhibit. In the absence of any petition for marking the analyst report as additional evidence and as the said document is not marked by the trial court, the lower appellate court ought to have set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner-A.1 by the trial court. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued in support of the findings of the trial court. 7. In all, 21 documents were marked by the prosecution during the course of trial. But curiously, the analyst report, which shows that the contraband is Chloral Hydrate, is not marked and the trial court simply accepted the analyst report filed along with the charge sheet and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence. From a perusal of the documentary evidence placed before the trial court, it is clear that the analyst report is not tendered in the evidence of the petitioner enabling him to question its validity. This aspect was discussed in detail by the appellate court at paras 11 to 13 of its judgment. As rightly observed by the appellate court, non-marking of the vital document i.e. analyst report cannot totally vitiate the case of the prosecution as it is an irregularity and the same can be cured. Taking the said aspect into consideration, the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 8. Of course, this Court can take a lenient view for the reason that the alleged offence took place on 18.08.2001. But however, looking at the facts particularly the seizure of huge quantity of Chloral Hydrate and other substances useful for preparation of Chloral mixture, this Court is unable to take a lenient view. Hence, this Court finds no merits in this revision. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As it is an old case of the year 2001, the trial court is hereby directed to give utmost priority to this case and decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.422 of 2004 (Dismissed) 8th June, 2010 CBS