IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1621 of 2004 THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Between: B.Sudhakar Goud ….PETITIONER(S) a n d The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ….RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1621 of 2004 ORDER: This revision case is directed against the judgment dated 25.01.2000 in Crl.A.No.178 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by judgment dated 27.10.1997 in C.C.No.949 of 1996 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Sangareddy, was confirmed. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The petitioner, who was the sole accused in the above C.C., was charged for the offence punishable under Section 37(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short – ‘the Act’), for allegedly being in possession of toddy adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of the petitioner, there is no evidence either oral or documentary. On the basis of the evidence placed on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act, convicted him for the same and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that as the lower appellate Court did not consider the case on merits and disposed of the same in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, and as there was no proper appreciation of evidence, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. 5. As seen from paragraph No.7 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, a non-bailable warrant was pending against the petitioner since 23.11.1998. More than one year thereafter i.e. on 25.01.2000, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. No doubt, the matter was not disposed of in the presence of either the petitioner or his counsel, but it was on account of the petitioner’s own abstinence and he was at fault as he did not appear before the lower appellate Court, in spite of a non-bailable warrant pending against him for more than one year. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves an opportunity of hearing his case once again by the lower appellate Court. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 25.01.2000 in Crl.A.No.178 of 1997 passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside and is remitted back to it for disposal afresh on merits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be present before the lower appellate Court on 22.07.2010 on which date the appeal shall be called by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is ordered. ________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 1st July 2010 CVRK Note: Office to communicate the order of this Court to the lower appellate Court along with the records, if any, pertaining to Crl.A.No.178 of 1997, immediately. ______ PSR, J