THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1534 OF 2004 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – Accused No.1 Neelapuram Subbarayudu against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,(F.T.C.) Cuddapah, in Crl.A.No.227 of 2002, which was filed against the conviction and judgment passed in C.C.No.142 of 2001 dated 24.07.2002 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Cuddapah, under which the present petitioner was convicted under Section 8(b) of A.P.P.Act and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.09.2001 at about 12.40 p.m. during the excise raids conducted by the Excise Officials, they inspected the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11Z 214 near N.T.P.C. on the main road leading from Cuddapah to Rayachoty at C.K.Dinne Mandal and found both the accused traveling in the bus with cans containing ID liquor. Total quantity of ID liquor is 15 litres in two cans. Accused were arrested, panchanama was conducted for which the conductor and driver of the bus acted as panch witnesses. Samples were drawn, sent to chemical examination and later charge sheet was filed. The accused denied the prosecution case. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked apart from M.Os.1 and 2. 4. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses, i.e. the conductor and driver of the bus respectively. P.W.3 is the Excise Sub- Inspector that has conducted the raid and P.W.4 is another Sub- Inspector of Police that has filed the charge sheet. 5. Both the Courts below holding that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 revealed recovery of illicit liquor from the possession of accused, who were traveling in the bus at the time of accident, found the accused guilty. 6. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused contends that there was no satisfactory evidence against the petitioner to hold that the prosecution case against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the property that was allegedly recovered from the petitioner was never produced in the Court. There is no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on material particulars. As such, the appreciation of evidence of both Courts has held to be perverse and the accused is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that both the Courts have consistently held the case against the petitioner/accused No.1 and minor contradictions cannot come to the rescue of the accused at the stage of revision. 8. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to allow the revision? 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, the main evidence to show that any liquor was seized from the possession of the accused is not available on record, as the plastic bag that was allegedly containing the liquor and allegedly seized from the possession of the accused is never marked. Though it is the prosecution case that the same is produced in the Court, it is not known what happened to it. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that as M.Os.1 and 2 sample bottles taken out from the can are produced and that is sufficient to prove the recovery of the liquor from the possession of the accused. However, I am not inclined to accept this contention in the absence of production of the can that was allegedly containing liquor. 10. Another important circumstance is, as per the prosecution case that is according to both panch witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2, the liquor was found in can in sachets, but P.W.3 the excise official that conducted the raid never spoke about the liquor being found in sachets. In case, the liquor was found in sachets, all the sachets were to be opened and liquor was to be mixed and sample was to be collected from out of that. But P.W.3 never spoke about any such thing. Thus, there is doubt as to whether any liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused at all. 11. Considering both the above circumstances, which go to the very root of the matter, I hold that the prosecution case against the petitioner cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the revision is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction imposed against the petitioner-accused No.1, by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Cuddapah, in C.C.No.142 of 2001 is hereby set aside. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 17th June 2010, Rns