THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1704 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Munisif Magistrate, Kandukur in C.C.No.99 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. 2 The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.5. Having considered the said evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly by its judgment dated 19.03.2001 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. As against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 27.01.2004, while confirming the said sentence imposed by the trial court, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision. 3 Brief facts are that on 19.04.1996 when the excise officials were on duty to detect excise cases, and when they reached Elurupadu bridge, they found the petitioner with a white plastic can and on suspicion the police arrested the petitioner. On questioning the petitioner and after securing the mediators, the police opened the can and found five litres of toddy. The petitioner was not having any valid licence to be in possession of the said toddy. In that connection a case in Cr.No.139 of 1996 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act was registered. The seized property was sent to the chemical examiner, who, after examination, opined that the same was toddy free from Chlorohydrate and diazepam. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. As stated supra, the learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the entire material available on record, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted. 4 Heard both sides. 5 During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner was arrested on 19.04.1996 immediately after registration of the crime and was released on bail on 26.04.1996. It is further brought to the notice of this court that at the time when the appellate court pronounced the judgment, the petitioner was not present and subsequently he was arrested in the last week of July 2004 and thereafter when he approached this court and filed the present revision, this court was pleased to grant bail on 05.10.2004. Thus he had undergone a further sentence of more than two months. 6 Having heard the said submission and also taking the fact that the offence took place on 19.04.1996, and having regard to the nature of offence, this court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken in this case. 7 Accordingly, while maintaining the fine amount imposed by both the courts below, the said sentence of one year imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. 8 The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. --------------------- kvsn 19.04.2010