HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 677 OF 2004 Dated 16-6-2010 Between: Boya Yerra Pullaiah. …Petitioner. And: The State Prohibition & Excise S.I. Nandikotkur, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 677 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereunder and whereby, the conviction and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years also payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed in C.C.No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nandikotkur for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, were confirmed. The facts of the case in brief are: On 2-7-2001, during the course of the usual raids by the Prohibition and Excise Officials, Nandikotkur, they found the accused- petitioner sitting with a plastic can and on seeing the raiding party, when he tried to run away, they arrested him. They found a can in possession of the petitioner-accused containing 10 litres of I.D. arrack. In this connection, the Police registered a case against the petitioner- accused and investigated into. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (1) the complainant is the Investigating Officer on this case and hence, the evidence of P.W.3 shall not be accepted; (2) there is no independent witness to attest the mahazar; (3) they have not followed the procedures established in Criminal Procedure Code; and (4) the witness shown in the charge sheet who accompanied the raiding party was also not examined to prove the case of the prosecution. This Court perused the entire evidence on record and the judgments of the lower Courts. In the present case, the Investigating Officer who examined himself as P.W.3 who is the informant has stated that he went for raid along with other police officials and further stated that he could not secure any independent witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it is the case of P.W.3 that he went along with officials for the purpose of raid, nothing prevented him from taking either V.A.O. or some independent witness for the purpose of attesting the mahazar. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 shall be eschewed as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the witness shown in the Charge Sheet who accompanied P.W.3-the informant and Investigating Officer was not examined before the Court below to substantiate recovery of the illicit arrack from the petitioner. Considering the submissions, this Court is of the view that it is unsafe to convict a person on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Investigating Officer and Police officials. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does not inspire confidence of this Court. Hence, the conviction and sentence confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and the accused-petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner is directed to be returned to him. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated 16-06-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 677 OF 2004 Dated 16-06-2010