THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.82 OF 2006. ORDER: 1. This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 09-01-2006, in Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 14-12-2004 at about 9.45 A.M., the Prohibition and Excise Inspector along with Excise Sub-Inspector, his staff and mediators conducted raids, and during raids, they found the accused at the first turning on 189- Kothapalli Dalithwada to C.K.Palli bus road of Gudipala mandal, while he was sitting on a motor tube, and on seeing Excise Officials, he ran away. He was identified to be the accused by the mediator. Thereafter, Prohibition and Excise Inspector seized 50 litres of I.D. liquor from motor tube in the presence of mediators, and drew 180 ml of sample, and after observing necessary formalities, sent the same to the Chemical Examiner, who after analysis opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The case was taken on file as C.C. No.154 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Chittoor. A charge under Section 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 6 besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the charge and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, vide judgment, dated 17-11-2005. On appeal by the accused, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court, vide impugned judgment. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of the two Courts below are correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused contended that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to show that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act; that, the procedure for search and seizure have not been followed, that the accused was not identified by anybody and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. 9. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that 50 litres of I.D.liquor was seized from the accused and they identified the accused as the person who ran away, that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that they are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 10. Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal or improper or not based upon any evidence, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. According to P.W.2-Excise Sub Inspector, on the date of incident, himself and his staff found the accused at first turning on 189 Kothapalle Dalithwada sitting on a motor tube, and on seeing them from a distance of 20 yards, the accused fled away, and thereafter, the contraband was seized. Admittedly, at the time of seizure of property, the accused was not present. Similarly, P.W.1 who is the Panchayat Secretary and acted as mediator, categorically stated that he did not know the accused. His version is that the accused is resident of Kothapalle and that the excise officials informed him that the motor tube of contraband belonged to one Babulaiah (accused). Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 does not reveal that it is the accused, who was carrying I.D.liquor. P.W.2 also did not identify the accused as the person who ran away on the date of incident. Therefore, his evidence is also not much helpful to the case of the prosecution with regard to identity of the accused. 13. P.W.3-Talari of the village, did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. She did not identify the accused as the person who ran away from the scene of offence. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the person carrying I.D. liquor and hence, he cannot be convicted. This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the two Courts below. Therefore, the conviction and sentenced recorded against the petitioner/accused by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court, are liable to be set aside and the accused is entitled for acquittal. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 09-01-2006, in Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The petitioner-accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 8(e) of A.P.P. Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-accused shall be returned to him. --------------------- K.C.BHANU DATED: 16-07-2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.82 OF 2006. DATED: 16-07-2010 Between: Babulaiah, s/o. Gurunadha …Petitioner-accused And The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban Excise Police Station, Chittoor, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.82 OF 2006. 16.07.2010