HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1503 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.302 of 2001, dated 26.09.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on both counts for the offences punishable under Section 8 (b) and 8 (e) read with Section 7 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, in C.C.No.243 of 2000 dated 11.04.2001. The case of the prosecution is that the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Piduguralla along with his staff conducted raids on 19.07.1995 at Avuladona forest area and found 90 mud pots containing F.J. wash of 20 litres in each pot and a blue colour liquor can containing 20 litres of I.D. liquor and arrested the revision petitioner-A2 and another who are responsible for manufacturing I.D. liquor. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the revision petitioner-A2 and another guilty of the offences punishable under Section 8 (b) and 8 (e) read with Section 7 of the A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A2 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A2 preferred this criminal revision. Head both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, this Court of the view that the Courts below have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-accused was guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Hence the conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-A2 is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The alleged offence took place on 19.07.1995. At that point of time there was prohibition in the State of Andhra Pradesh and possession of liquor was an offence. Subsequently the prohibition was lifted in the State and the Government issued orders stating that the offence falling under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act is compoundable. Further the revision petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year, on both counts, as was imposed by the Courts below, to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19.08.2010 Gsn.