HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.393 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and sentenced to under RI for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for three months and also convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer, SI for three months under Section 22 of NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2002, P.W.3 received reliable information about sale of adulterated toddy by the accused herein. Having secured panchas, he searched the premises of the accused and found 24 bottles of toddy and 20 liters of toddy in a mud pot. P.W.2, drew two samples from the said mud pot for the purpose of analysis. On examination, the Chemical Examiner having analyzed the samples issued opinion that the toddy was adulterated with Diazepam. 3. P.Ws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses, who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and denied being witnesses to any 2 kind of seizure that took place in the house of accused. The only evidence is of P.W.3, who stated that he raided the premises along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and seized the adulterated toddy and drew samples for analysis. 4. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that both the witnesses to the alleged seizure turned hostile, for which reason, the evidence of interested witness PW3 cannot be considered and the accused is liable to be acquitted. 5. The hostility of panch witnesses cannot be treated as a ground to acquit the accused when the remaining evidence produced by the prosecution is convincing. P.W.3 herein is public servant and there is no reason shown as to why PW.3 would falsely implicate the accused in the case. 6. Sampling was done and the same is not disputed by the accused during the course of cross-examination, however, it was stated that this accused was falsely implicated. In view of the procedure being followed by P.W.3 by collecting samples, and when it was found that the said samples contained Diazepam, however the exact quantity of Diazepam in the 3 toddy was not ascertained. For the said reason, the judgment of the trial Court finding the accused guilty of the said offence cannot be interfered with. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in SC No.125 of 2003 dated 25.03.2009 is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed. __________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 15.07.2022 kvs 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.393 OF 2009 Date: 15.07.2022. kvs