THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.335 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 18.2.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2002 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed on accused No.1 for the offences under Section 34(a) and 34(h) of the A.P. Excise and Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’) by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for Excise, Guntur, by his judgment dated 28.11.2002 in C.C.No.33 of 2002, was confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the instructions of the prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur, PW.4, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Guntur along with PW.3, Prohibition and Excise constable and two excise constables and two mediators viz. PW.1, Village Administrative Officer, Koretipadu, Guntur and PW.2, Revenue Inspector, Guntur raided the house of A1 bearing Door No.5-19-29 situated at 2/18, Brodiepet, Guntur on 19.6.2000 at 13.00 hours. At that time A1 was present there and after serving the search proceedings on him in order to search the house, caused search of the said house. The excise officials found M.O.17, black colour zip bag containing M.O.16, three varieties of labels of President Malted Whisky of 180 ml. pure grape brandy, 180ml, and three Hayward Old Taverne whiksy 180 ml. and M.Os 1 and 2 i.e. two quarter bottles of Kerala Malted whisky, M.O.3, one small bottle containing some liquid, M.O.4, one plastic tin, M.Os 5 and 6 two rubber stamps, and M.O.15, small polythene bag containing corks and four empty plastic cans. 3. That suspecting that the M.O.16 labels are fake labels, on the instructions of PW.4, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, PW.3, Head constable purchased M.Os 8 to 11. One Old Taverine whisky bottle of 180 ml., pure grape brandy bottle of 180 ml., President Malted Whisky bottle of 180 ml. and Kerala Malted Whisky bottle of 180 ml. in Sneha Wines in Guntur under Ex.P.3, cash bill and when PW.4 compared the labels found on M.Os 8 to 11 with that of the M.O.16, labels, and M.O.16 labels were found to be fake ones. On counting the fake labels of 67 bundles, each bundle containing 500 labels of the brand of President Malted Whisky, 68 bundles each containing 500 labels of pure grape brandy and one bundle containing 339 labels of the brand of Haywards Old Taverine Whisky. On verification of M.O.3, small bottle containing some liquid having lid it was containing the particulars of “Flavours India Private Limited, Pandicherry” and the liquid in it was smelling. On verification of M.Os 5 and 6 rubber stamps, one rubber stamp was found with B.No.90 dated 14.2.1998 and another one was containing B.No.20/2-5-98 and when the polythene was verified 350 fake lids were found having the name of Haywards Old Taverine Whisky on it. 4. When the A1 was enquired he stated that he along with A2 obtained the above faked material from an unknown person at Hyderabad in order to prepare and sell the liquor. Thereafter, PW.4, Prohibition and Excise Inspector had taken Kerala Malted Whisky bottles containing some liquid and M.O.4 plastic tin as samples. He had also taken the other bottle of Kerala Malted Whiskey and also two fake labels from each brand along with four bottles purchased from Sneha Wines as samples sealed them and affixed identify slips duly signed by the mediators. PWs 1, 2 and PW.4, Excise Inspector. He also seized the entire material and arrested A1 under the cover of Ex.P.2, mediators’ report duly attested by the above mediators and brought A1 and the case property to the excise Station, Guntur and registered Ex.P.2 Mediatornama as a case in P.R.No.23/2000-2001 for the offences under Sections 34(a) (e) (f) and (h) of the Act and issued Ex.P.4, first information report and sent the appellant-accused for judicial custody. 5. That PW.4, P & E, Inspector sent the sample bottle along with Exs.P.5 and P.6 Letter of advices through court to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and the Chemical examiner sent his Ex.P.8 report opining that the samples are spurious liquor unfit for human consumption. PW.4 also sent the fake labels taken as samples along with the original liquor bottles purchased from the shop Sneha wines to the Label Cell for verification and comparison of the labels and that PW.6, Asst. Commissioner sent the approved labels of the four brands and that PW.5, Excise Sub Inspector, Guntur in turn sent them to the Label Cell. 6. That on receipt of Ex.C2 report from F.S.L. that the sample bottles were containing labels and on receipt of the chemical examiner’s report. PW.7, the then Sub Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer, Guntur, laid charge against the revision petitioner/A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 34(a), 34(e) and 34(h) of the Act. 7. The trial court after full fledged trial found A1 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) and 34(h) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months under each count. The sentence of imprisonment under both counts shall run concurrently as the offences are committed at one and the same time. 8. That on finding A2 not guilty for the offences under Sections 34(a), 34(e) and 34 (h) of A.P. Excise Act,1968, he was acquitted of the said charges, since there was no evidence against him except the alleged confessional statement of A1 which could not be established to link him therewith. 9. Today, when the matter is called, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not present and there is no representation. Hence, the matter is disposed of on merits. 10. PW1 to PW.4 are the material witnesses to prove that the A.1 was in possession of spurious liquors bottles, fake labels and rubber stamps. PWs 1 and 2 are the mediators whereas PWs 3 and 4 are the prohibition and Excise Head Constable and Prohibition and Excise Inspector, who conducted the raid. PW3 and PW.4 corroborated the prosecution case. The case of the revision petitioner is that since PWs 1 and 2, the mediators, turned hostile, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. A perusal of the record shows that PW.2, the revenue Inspector alone completely turned hostile, but PW.1, VAO of Koretipadu corroborated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. At the first instance, PW.1 categorically stated that what had happened in their presence was incorporated in Ex.P.2 mediator’s report and supported the case of the prosecution by corroborating the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. Later, PW.1 turned hostile. Therefore, turning hostile subsequently by PW.1 does not in any manner defeat the case of the prosecution. 11. In the circumstances, both the courts below evaluated the evidence and other material on record in accordance with law and reached logical conclusion that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 34(a) and 34(h) of the Act and as such the same does not, in any way, warrant, interference from this revisional court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -04-2010 Stp