THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1525 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2001 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur where under the conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2001 passed in C.C.No.529 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Guntur was confirmed. 2 The facts in brief are that on information that large quantity of liquor bottles were secreted by the petitioner at her dwelling house situated at Yuvajananagar, Pedakakani, the Superintendent of Proh. & Excise, Guntur District along with his staff reached the house of the petitioner on 03.08.1996 at about 2.45 p.m. and found the house locked. Then in the presence of the Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer a search was conducted by issuing proceedings under Section 165 Cr.P.C. and were affixed to the door. Thereafter locks were broke open and in the presence of the mediators 50 carton boxes containing liquor bottles with full of liquor were seized and another 61 carton boxes with liquor bottles were seized in the rear side room of North East corner of the house under the cover of panchanama. The total bottles that were seized were 1332 and that they were meant for sale in the State of Karnataka only. In that connection a case in P.R.No.893/95-96 was registered and investigated into. The sample sent to the public analyst was found to be Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 3 In order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1. The trial court having analysed the entire evidence available on record found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(b) (ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year by its judgment dated 14.03.2001. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2001 and as stated supra, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur while confirming the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. 4 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner is the owner of the house and the prosecution witnesses have not established the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said house and he placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Kalidindi Rama Raju @ Rambabu Vs. State of A.P.[1] 5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in his usual manner, opposed the said contention. 6 In view of the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the judgments passed by the courts below. The trial court in its judgment had clearly observed at fifth point of its judgment as follows: “………Admittedly the accused was not present at the time of said seizure. P.Ws.1 and 2 Village Servant and VAO as well P.W.3 DEF C.I. deposed that said house belongs to accused and on reliable information only this raid was conducted. Learned defence advocate strongly contended that any record from Grama Panchayat and Revenue Office are not produced as such the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be disbelieved. Of course, there is some force in the contention of learned defence advocate. Had the investigating officers been secured material from gram panchayat or MRO that said house belong to the accused prosecution will be in better position that what it stands more.” 7 When once the trial court itself entertained a doubt with regard to the ownership of the petitioner over the said house, in my considered view, it should have extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner / accused. The trial court as well as the appellate Court have relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 who are official witnesses. P.W.1 is the Village Assistant, P.W.2 is Village Administrative Officer, P.Ws.3 and 4 are Excise Inspectors. When once it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is in possession of contraband liquor and is carrying on business in her premises, it is for the prosecution to establish that the said house belongs to the petitioner. Apparently there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said house. It cannot be expected that the defence i.e. petitioner shall produce the evidence establishing the fact that she is not the owner of the said house. The facts in Kalidindi Rama Raju (1 supra) case are somewhat different from the facts of the case on hand. In that case when the prosecution party raided the tiles factory of the petitioner therein, the petitioner was very much present at the scene of offence. However, this court opined that mere presence of the petitioner at the place of offence is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and consequently held that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the petitioner therein over the said tiles factory since they did not examine any of the neighbour to establish the ownership of the petitioner over the said tiles factory. Here, in this case, the petitioner is not present at the scene of offence. If such is the situation the prosecution at least ought to have filed a certificate issued by the gram panchayat stating that the said house belongs to the petitioner. But the prosecution has not taken even a little bit of pain in that regard. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ownership of the petitioner over the said house and accordingly the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 8 In the result, this revision is allowed, the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.178 of 2001 dated 07.09.2004 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled. -------------- 06.09.2010 Kvsn [1] 2002 (2) ALT 114 (A.P.)