IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.66 OF 2005 Between: T. Satyanarayana Reddy ... PETITIONER (Appellant/accused) AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case arises out of the judgment dated 18-01-2005 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the sentence and conviction imposed on the revision petitioner/A-1 by the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram dated 07-01-2003 in C.C.No.104 of 2000 was confirmed. 2. That on 25-11-1993 at about 2.00 p.m., at Eastern Railway gate, Anaparthi the revision petitioner/A-1 was found carrying 44 nip bottles of King Doctors brandy containing 180 ml., each bottle of brandy without having any license or permit. That he was arrested under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the contraband was seized in the presence of the mediators under the cover of panchanama. It is stated by the revision petitioner/A-1 before the Excise Police that he purchased the said bottles from A-2. That samples of the contraband were dawn and the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner through Court and they were found to be Alcohol. 3. That though a charge sheet was laid against the revision petitioner/A-1 as well as A-2 for the said offence, the case of A-2 was abated on his death. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and M.Os.1 to 3. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 - VAO who acted as one of the mediators to the arrest of A-1 as well as seizer of contraband from his possession and also the evidence of PW-3 – Excise Inspector and PW-4 – the Excise Sub-Inspector and also taking into consideration of Ex.P-1 mediators report, dated 25-11-1993 and Ex.P-3 analysis report, dated 09-02-1994, the trial court found the revision petitioner/A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default simple imprisonment for two more moths while confiscating M.Os.1 to 3 to the State. 6. Aggrieved by the said sentence and conviction the revision petitioner/A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. That the said appellate Court after appreciating the evidence as well as the other material on record as well as contentions raised by both sides dismissed the appeal confirming the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial Court, as stated in paragraph No.5, supra. 7. It is the case of the revision petitioner that both the Courts below ought not to have believe the evidence of PW-1 – V.A.O. who acted as one of the mediators along with PW-2 since PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. He went to the extent of stating that during the course of his investigation, he was not examined by any Police Officials. Thus, it is contended that on his behalf that once the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is excluded from consideration, the uncorroborated evidence of PW-4 – Excise Sub Inspector would not be sufficient to base conviction of the revision petitioner/A-1. 8. It is further the case of the revision petitioner/A-1 that the Chemical Examiner who issued Ex.P-3 report was not examined. Therefore, no sanctity could be attached to the said report. That lastly it is contended that on behalf of the revision petitioner/A-1 that in the above circumstances both the Courts below ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the revision petitioner/A-1. Though the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment of the lower Appellate Court as well as the trial court, PW-1 being a Village Administrative Officer –cum-mediator his evidence ought to have scrutinized carefully as he happened to be an official witness along with PWs.3 and 4 Police Officials. It is to be observed that PW-2 was the only independent witness who acted as one of the mediators along with PW-1 – V.A.O., to the arrest of the revision petitioner/A-1 and the alleged seizure of the contraband from him, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution at all. More over, the Chemical Examiner was not examined to prove Ex.P-3 analyst report and the same appears to be a lacuna in the prosecution case. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this revisional court is of the considered opinion that lower appellate court could have, at least, extended benefit of doubt in favour of the revision petitioner/A-1. 10. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed extending the benefit of doubt by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18-01-2005 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. 11. As the revision petitioner/A-1 is stated to be on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. ___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J April 13, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.66 OF 2005 April 13, 2010