IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 760 OF 2004. Between: Thammida Pullaiah … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad Through SHO Prohibition & Excise, Station Rly, Kodur. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 760 OF 2004 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Kadapa, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2002, dated 20-1-2004 confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet in CC.No.744 of 2000, dated 08-3-2002, whereby the petitioner is found guilty and he was sentenced to suffer Ri8gorous Imprisonment for one year and alsot o pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 7- A read with section 6 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector laid charge sheet in Cr.No.40/98-99 under section 7-A read with section 6 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. It is alleged that on 09-5-1999 during raids by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector at 4:00 p.m., A-1 and A-2 were found running working still at Gobburuvaripalli. A-1 was arrested and A-2 ran away. It was found that there was 50 litres of hot wash, 200 litres of Jaggery wash in an iron drum and two plastic pots each with 18 litres of F.J. Wash, 18 litres of I.D. liquor was found in a plastic pot. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence let in. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found A-1 guilty of the offence under section 7-A punishable under section 6 (3) of A.P. Prohibition Act and convicted A-1 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and acquitted A-2 under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 7-A of A.P. Prohibition Act. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. It is seen from the evidence on record that PWs 1 and 2 are Excise Officials and on 09-5-1999 during raids by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector at 4:00 p.m., A-1 and A-2 were found running working still at Gobburuvaripalli. On seeing PWs.1 and 2, two persons ran away from the place of occurrence and PWs.1 and 2 caught hold of the person i.e., the petitioner herein where they found some incriminating material and also illicit arrack. The petitioner and others were manufacturing illicit arrack and further it is the evidence that A-1 confessed that the person who ran from the place of occurrence is A2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely placing reliance on PWs.1 and 2, conviction cannot be sustained. Further it is submitted that no independent witness was examined even though there is some explanation by PWs-1 and 2, which is highly unbelievable. This court after hearing the arguments and on perusing the entire evidence on record, it is seen from the evidence that the petitioner was present in the place of occurrence but there is no connecting material placed by the prosecution to prove that the present petitioner is the owner of the properties concerned or i.e., the person who involved in the manufacture of I.D. arrack and two of the persons ran away from the scene and one of the person was caught hold by the said witnesses and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in connection with the securing of the accused is also contradictory with each other. PW-1 claims that he caught of the petitioner but whereas the evidence of PW.2 that he only arrested the petitioner. When there is no specific evidence or reliable evidence to prove that the material seized by the officers concerned belongs to the petitioner herein, the petitioner cannot be safely convicted for the offence alleged. In view of the failure on the part of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime, this court is of the view that the conviction confirmed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside and accordingly the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court confirmed by the appellate court is set aside and the petitioner-A1 is acquitted of all the charge. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-A1 is directed to be returned to the petitioner. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 16-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 760 OF 2004 Circulation Entry No. 135 Date: 16-06-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L