IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.61 OF 2009 Between: Palli Gopala Rao ... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P.represented by Public Prosecutor Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.61 OF 2009 ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.181 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, who was convicted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.119 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2006, the accused was found in possession of four nips of ‘Royal Gold cup extra smooth whisky’ when the Prohibition & Excise people proceeded to Gajapathinagaram weekly shandy. Thereafter, the property was seized and a crime was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act. 3. After appearance of the accused, a charge was framed under Section 34 (a) of the Act, read over and explained to him, but he pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were got marked besides case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 5. 5. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. The same was confirmed in an appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that except the interested testimony of the Excise officials, there is no other evidence available on record and therefore, the lower Court erred in convicting the revision petitioner. 7. Both the Courts below accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and there is no motive for them to involve the revision petitioner in the said crime. Therefore, taking it into consideration, I do not find any irregularity on the appreciation of evidence by both the courts below. 8. The counsel further pleads that the revision petitioner is aged about 52 years; he already paid fine and he was in jail for some time. Evidently, there is no record to show that the revision petitioner was involved in another crimes of this nature earlier and it is not the case of prosecution that the revision petitioner was convicted in any other case. Therefore, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C; the age of the revision petitioner; the quantum of the liquor which was said to have been produced by the revision petitioner and in the interest of justice, the revision petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for good behaviour for a period of one year and to be kept under the supervision of Probationary Officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the revision petitioner to execute a bond before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram for keeping good behaviour under Section 360 Cr.P.C. for a period of one year. In case of failure to keep good behaviour to receive the sentence as and when called for. The petitioner shall execute a bond within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The accused shall be under the supervision of the Probationary Officer for a period of one year. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J OCTOBER 27, 2011. YVL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.61 OF 2009 27.10.2011 YVL