THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner herein was tried as the sole accused by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise), Guntur, in C.C.No.663 of 1996, and on analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28.07.1999, found the petitioner/accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. As against the said judgment, the accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.432 of 1999 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who, after considering the matter in detail, by his judgment dated 11.02.2002, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution, succinctly, is as follows:- On receipt of reliable information by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Narasaraopet, on 20.09.1994, he along with P.W.2- Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Narasaraopet, P.W.1-Village Administrate Officer and other staff members went to the house of the accused bearing Door No.36 situated at Syndicatenagar Colony, Jonnalagadda village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur, and after serving search proceedings-Ex.P2 to the accused, who was present there at that time, searched his house and found three sealed bottles of 180 ml. of Vazir XXX Rum in each bottle, two empty bottles of Vazir XXX Rum smelling rum, one sealed bottle of 180 ml. of Rustim XXX Rum and one opened bottled of 100 ml. of Rustim XXX Rum. The accused was not having any licence or permit, and on enquiring him, he confessed that he was selling rum to gain profit. Immediately, P.W.2 has drawn the samples, seized the bottles under cover of mediators’ report-Ex.P1 at the scene of offence, obtained the signature of accused on Ex.P1 and arrested the accused. After returning to the Excise Police Station, P.W.2 registered Crime No.154/93-94 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act, remanded the accused to judicial custody, forwarded the samples to the Chemical Analyst and after receiving the report-Ex.P7 from the chemical analyst that the samples are Indian Made Liquor, the charge sheet was laid against the accused. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and marked M.Os.1 to 3. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act and, accordingly, by judgment dated 28.07.1999, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Assailing the same, the accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.432 of 1999 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who, after considering the matter in detail, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the present Civil Revision Case. On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below and hearing the submissions of Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is of the view that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act, and the same was rightly confirmed by the appellate Court, which requires no interference. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in jail for more than one month and requests that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced. In the light of the above submission, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, maintaining the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner to that of the period already undergone by him. So far as the fine amount is concerned, it needs no interference. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 05.03.2010 v v