THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.177 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, alleging that on the raids conducted by them on 28.01.2008, at about 11 am., they found the accused with wooden handle bag containing ten quarter bottles of Contess XXX Rum each 750 ml, meant for defence personnel only near Scindia Junction and on interrogation, the accused revealed her identity and also stated that she bought those liquor bottles from an unknown person at Scindia Pipeline area for the purpose of resale and that the said liquor bottles were seized under the cover of occurrence report and one bottle was taken as sample and sent to an expert for analysis, who, after analysis, opined that it is Indian made. The said charge sheet was taken on file as C.C.No.642 of 2008 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked, besides M.O- 1. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 03.02.2009, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2009 and the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, Visakhapatnam, by his judgment, dated 25.01.2011, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for about a week and requested this Court to take a lenient view. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 25.01.2011 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. As such, as of today, the petitioner has been in jail for one week. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As the petitioner is in jail, the Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities and the jail authorities shall release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other crime. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 31st January 2011 DR