THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1738 of 2004 Date: 29.07.2011 Between: Shaik Khadar Hussain and another … Petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 AND The State of A.P., through Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam, rep.by the Public Prosecutor … Respondent/ Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1738 of 2004 ORDER: Four accused were charged by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali for offences under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8 (b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. During the pendency of the trial, A.4 died. The case stood abated against A.4. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted A.3. He also considered that no case was made out against A.1 and A.2 for the offences u/s.34 (a) of the Excise Act. He, however, found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offences under Section 8 (b) of the Prohibition Act, convicted them for the same and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The convicted accused in A.1 and A.2 preferred appeal before the III Additional Sessions Court, Guntur. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. 2. Sri S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting accused in A.1 and A.2 submitted that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and that benefit of doubt shall accrue to the accused. The offence occurred on 10.05.1997. The case of the prosecution is that on that day, at about 11.15 p.m., when the excise officials were making routine checks at the Tenali Railway Station, they noticed the four accused and that when they searched the four accused, they found bottles of alcohol beyond the permitted limit. As mediators were not available at that time, a special report was drafted under Ex.P.1. PW.1 was the Inspector of Excise and Prohibition. PW.2 was the Police Constable of the same Department. Inter alia, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that while the offence occurred at a public place like a Railway Station, excise officials ought to have seized the contraband with the help of independent mediators and that instead, the excise officials recorded a special report under Ex.P.1. It is their case that the incident did not occur and that there would not have been independent mediators if the incident occurred in fact. 3. Indeed, it is a Railway Station where the offence occurred. At the same time, it may be noticed that the incident occurred at about 11.15 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution witnesses that independent mediators were not available, so much so it became necessary for the petitioner to seize the stock through a special report. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 & 2, I consider that the non-examination of any independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in any manner in this case. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that PW.2 was both the Investigating Officer and the complainant. His case is that prejudice is caused to the accused on account of PW.1 being both the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is not able to show any specific prejudice to his case on account of PW.1 being the Investigating Officer and the complainant. Merely because the complainant was the Investigating Officer, the charge cannot be brushed aside completely. The guilt of the accused deserves to be examined. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were found in possession of excess quantity of alcohol than permitted by the Act and the Rules. The learned counsel for the accused also placed reliance upon Sections 13 (3), 13 (4) and 13 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act contending that the non- production of the contraband before the Court is fatal. I am afraid that Section 13 itself provides that it would suffice if the Deputy Commissioner of Excise seized the stock. In the present case, excise officials precisely resorted to confiscation of the stock. 5. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent as to where the incident occurred, how many bottles were seized and where were they sent. The evidence of PW.2 corroborates the evidence of PW.1 on all material particulars. I, therefore, consider that the petitioner was justified in not producing the contraband before the trial Court. Where the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent, I hold that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is made out. I see no merits in this revision. The revision accordingly fails. 6. The revision is, therefore, dismissed holding that the guilt of the accused has been made out beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 29.07.2011 Isn