IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1896 OF 2003 Between: Gundla Satyanarayana Reddy ..... Revision Petitioner AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 03.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.146 of 2002, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short, “the Act”), and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months, by virtue of judgment, dated 21.06.2002, in C.C.No.561 of 2000, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, were confirmed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On 29.07.1997, P.Ws.1 and 3, who are working as Police Constables, have left the Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. to conduct the excise raids in and around the village Kalmalchervu and while they were conducting the excise raids at the outskirts of Kalmalchervu Village at about 12.00 noon, one person was running with a box. The excise police chased him and caught hold of him. On enquiry, the person disclosed his name as Gundla Satyanarayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “accused”). On physical verification of the box, the excise police found 48 quarter cheep liquor bottles and 38 all kinds of quarter bottles, totaling 86 bottles. P.Ws.1 and 3 brought the accused along with liquor bottles and handed over to P.W.4-Sub-Inspector of Police and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P1, dated 27.03.2002. P.W.4, who is the Investigating Officer, registered a case in Crime No.36/97 under Section 8 (b) of the Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 and arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of P.W.2 and one Yadlapally Venkateswarlu, who are the Mediators, and seized 86 quarter bottles and the accused was sent to judicial remand. Then, the sample bottles were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner, after analysis, opined that the sample contained liquor. After completion of investigation, the excise police filed the charge sheet. 3. A charge under Section 8 (b) of the Act was framed against the accused, and when the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides case properties M.Os. 1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the two Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel, Sri Ramachandraiah, appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the independent Mediator, P.W.2, did not support the case of the prosecution; that another Mediator for the seizure of the contraband was not examined, that therefore, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, who are the excise officials; that for statistical purpose, the case is foisted against the accused, and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with as there is no illegal or incorrect finding; that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would clearly go to show that contraband was seized from the possession of the accused, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal, or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court or to reappreciate the evidence sitting as if in an Appeal. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. No doubt, they are excise officials, but that does not mean their evidence has to be rejected on that ground. Their evidence has to be appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witnesses. If there are any infirmities in their evidence, then only their evidence has to be scrutinized cautiously. Simply because P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, that does not mean the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 has to be disbelieved. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would clearly go to show that all of them proceeded to outskirts of the village to conduct raids to detect the excise offences. When they reached the place of occurrence, they found one person running away with a box. The police chased him and caught hold of him. He was found in possession of 86 quarter bottles of liquor. If really, the police wanted to foist a false case against the accused, they would have planted 10 or 15 quarter bottles with the accused instead of showing the considerable number of 86 bottles. There is no other reason for them to foist a false case against the accused. Nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is true and reliable. Therefore, the trial Court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses. There are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial Court, as confirmed by the Appellate Court, is liable to be confirmed. 13. In view of the fact that the petitioner herein seems to be the first offender and no other case is similar to the present one was filed against the accused, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. 14. In view of the fact that minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. 15. In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, in C.C.No.561 of 2000, dated 21.06.2002, against the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of the Act and as confirmed by the Appellate Court is confirmed, but the sentence is reduced from Simple Imprisonment for one (1) year to Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 16. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 8th December, 2009 KL