IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.1032 of 2011 Between: Veligetla Ramesh Kumar & another … Petitioners And: State rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.1032 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2011 in Crl.A.No.494 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein-A.1 and A.2, was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntur in CC No.298 of 2010 on 22.10.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 172 and 145 of the Railways Act in CC No.298 of 2010. According to the prosecution, on 17.09.2004, A.1 and A.2 who were railway employees, were in intoxicating state while on duty on platform No.1 of Guntur railway station and when the complainant-PW.1 was found smoking cigarette, A.1 and A.2 insulted him and took away cash of Rs.30/- and the same was witnessed by PW.5. On the same day, LWs.1 and 2 informed the incident to LW.4, who was on duty and the accused were produced before PW.3, who sent them to the Government Hospital, Guntur for medical examination and the Medical officer PW.6 examined them and gave a certificate of drunkenness under Exs.P.3 and P.4. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The trial Court found A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 172 of the Railways Act and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the medical evidence on record does not establish the offence under Section 172 of the Railways Act, as there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were in a state of intoxication. 6. A.1 and A.2 are admittedly railway employees working as ticket examiners and they were on duty on the platform No.1 of Guntur Railways station on 17.09.2004 as can be seen from the muster rolls Exs.P.7 and P.8. PW.3 Sub Inspector of Police testified that A.1 and A.2 were produced before him by the complainant and PW.5 who is an eye witness to the occurrence and at that time the accused were in intoxicated condition. PW.2 took the accused to the Medical Officer-PW.6 on the directions of PW.3. PW.6 Medical Officer who examined A.1 and A.2 issued certificates Exs.P.3 and P.4 to the effect that by clinical examination, he found that A.1 and A.2 were under the influence of alcohol. PW.6 also deposed before the Court to the same effect. His evidence, of course shows that he has taken the blood samples of the accused and he has not received the blood report. In the cross-examination PW.6 reiterated that by clinical examination he opined that the accused consumed alcohol. 7. PW.6 is an independent witness, who was working as Causality Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Guntur at the relevant time. The testimony of PW.6 coupled with Exs.P.3 and P.4 certificates issued by him establish the fact that on 17.09.2004 at about 10 p.m. when he examined the accused, they were under the influence of alcohol. The incident is said to have taken place at 6 p.m. Even four hours thereafter, the accused were found to be under the influence of alcohol. Thus evidence on record establishes that at the time of occurrence, the accused were on duty on platform No.1 of Guntur Railway station and they misbehaved with PW.1 under the influence of alcohol and when they were taken for medical examination on the same night, they were found to be still under intoxication. Simply because, PW.6 issued certificates Exs.P.3 and P.4 even before receiving the blood report, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence cannot be brushed aside. The evidence on record was found to be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against them and accordingly, they were convicted by the trial Court. On reappraisal of the evidence, the said conviction was confirmed by the appellate court. The sentence of fine of Rs.500/- each imposed by the trial Court, which was also confirmed by the appellate court does not also call for any interference. 8. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.07.2011 bss