THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.588 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-Accused No.2 was tried by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, (Excise), Vizianagaram in C.C.No.2080 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-5, besides marking M.Os.1 and 2. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 28.08.2003, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2003 and the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, while concurring with the said findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment, dated 28.11.2003. After dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. As the petitioner was not in a position to engage a counsel to carry the matter in Revision to this Court, on his petition seeking to provide legal aid, the matter was referred to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, who, inturn allotted the case to one D.V.Ramanamurthy to appear on behalf of the petitioner, who filed the revision as against the said judgment of the lower appellate Court. Later, in his place one Sri V.Raghu, appeared for the petitioner. The docket order reads that this Revision was admitted by this Court on 06.04.2004. But, no where it reads that bail was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was sent to jail immediately after pronounced of the judgment by the lower appellate Court on 28.11.2003, and that, the petitioner when he was in custody gave a petition seeking to engage a counsel to carry the matter in Revision before this Court and the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, addressed a letter, dated 20.12.2003, to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority requesting to provide legal aid to the petitioner. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the petitioner- accused by now might have undergone the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed on him by both the Courts below. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this Revision is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd February 2011 DR