IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.434 of 2009 Between: Mosam Rama Rao ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh ..... Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.434 of 2009 ORDER: The criminal revision case is ﬁled against the conviction in C.C.No.220 of 2006, dated 20.11.2006, for the oﬀence under Section 7(A) read with 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. 2. The accused was charged for being in possession of 35 litres of I.D. Arrack on 03.10.2001 during rides conducted by the Excise Oﬃcials. The property was seized. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), he pleaded not guilty and accepting the guilt as voluntary, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and payment of ﬁne of Rs.10,000/-. It was challenged in Crl.A.No.244 of 2006 contending that the plea was not voluntary and the sentence is not legal. The Appellate Authority also conﬁrmed the conviction and sentence of the lower Court. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present criminal revision case is filed. 3. Heard. 4. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Courts below are legal and sustainable. 5. POINT: The accused is said to have admitted his guilt when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C at the time of framing of the charge. Evidently, as against a plea of guilt, there is no appeal and it should be shown by the appellant that the plea was not voluntary or that he was induced to make such a plea without knowing the consequence. But, however, no such material is available and the learned Magistrate and also the Sessions Judge found that the plea is voluntary. That being so, this Court, in this criminal revision case, cannot take into consideration any contrary contentions. But, however, taking into consideration the quantum of I.D. Arrack being only 35 litres and there being no previous oﬀence by the accused, I feel that it is a ﬁt case where the accused shall be dealt under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, in stead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment, he is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, East Godavari District, undertaking to keep good behaviour for one year and not to involve any oﬀences of this nature in future and to receive the sentence as and when called for. The accused is also to be kept under supervision by the Probationary Oﬃcer after intimation to him. The accused shall execute the above bond within one (1) month, failing which the criminal revision case shall stand dismissed. 7. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 3rd December, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 3 days. (B/o.) KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.434 of 2009 Date: 3rd December, 2011 KL