THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO.NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.122 of 2005 ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned order of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, dated 19.01.2005, in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar in C.C.No.195 of 2002, dated 06.02.2004. The case of the revision petitioner is that on 21.06.2002, he was alleged to have been found in possession of a plastic can containing five litres of I.D. Liquor and that during the course of raids, P.Ws. 1 and 2-police officials, arrested him and seized the contraband under Ex.P.1 confession-cum-seizure panchanama, in the presence of panch witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P.3 and M.O1-plastic can were got marked in support of its case. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. Taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 and other material on record, the trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 8 (b) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and convicted and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the order of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalaguda. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire material on record and also considering the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused, confirmed the order of the trial Court, observing that the order of the trial Court did not suffer from any error or irregularity and the same is justified. Now, the case of the revision petitioner/accused is that he is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case by the police for the sake of statistics. It is also his case that for the sake of argument, even assuming that he was arrested by the police, he along with the seized contraband ought to have been handed over to the Excise Police. Therefore, the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court in the first place and the Appellate Court in the second place ought to have considered this fact and submits that both the Courts below committed error in convicting and confirming the sentence against him, as already stated hereinabove. The revision petitioner/accused submits that the alleged panch witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution at all, as they turned hostile. He further submits that the P.Ws.1 is the Police Officer, who registered the crime and P.W.2 assisted him during the course of arrest and investigation of the case; that both the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that they being the departmental personnel, are interested witnesses and as such, both the Courts below ought not to have believed and relied on their evidence, since no independent witness is examined in support of the prosecution case; that there is no evidence corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the police officials; that the alleged prosecution witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile, as already stated hereinabove, and it is reiterated for the sake of convenience and better understanding, and lastly, he prays to take a lenient view. In the above facts and circumstances, this revisional Court is of the view that the Appellate Court ought to have considered that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are police officials and that their evidence ought not to have been based for the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused; that both the Courts below ought to have considered that Ex.P1- confession-cum-seizure panchanama proceedings had lost its sanctity as the mediators thereto i.e., P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile. Be it noted that though the revision petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police officials attached to Mattampalli Police Station and as such the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner that their evidence ought not to have been considered by the Courts below for convicting the revision petitioner/accused appears to be convincing and as such the impugned order of the Appellate Court dated 19th January, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2003 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed accordingly. _____________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Dated:19.02.2010 Bud