THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1594 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The prohibition & Excise Inspector Sullurupet registered a case in Crime P.R.No.139/2006-07 against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under section 7–A r/w 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. After investigation a charge sheet was filed stating that on 20.08.2006 when the said Inspector on credible information visited the scene of offence which was situated at the fly over bridge of Sujatha Nagar colony of Sujathanagar Village at a distance of 10 yards on the Southern side of Vijayawada hotel of Tada Mandal and found the petitioners in possession of three gunny bags in their hands and when questioned they gave their particulars and said that they have purchased arrack sachets at Bangarupet of Karnataka District in order to sell the same in their village for their livelihood. When the said gunny bags were opened, the Excise Inspector found 3060 arrack sachets in the said gunny bags. In the light of the same, samples were collected and the said sachets were seized under the cover of panchanama and sent them to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and report. After receipt of a report from the Chemical examiner, who opined that the said sachets contain diluted rectified spirit and as the same is liquor within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of A.P. Prohibition Act, the petitioners are liable for punishment for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The charge sheet was taken on file by the trial court as C.C.No.328 of 2006. 2 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3. The learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offence for which they were tried and accordingly sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. The said judgment dated 08.06.2009 passed by the trial court was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2009 and the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Nellore while concurring with the finding arrived at by the trial court dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 31.08.2009. Hence the present revision. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are living in poverty and thus they have resorted to this sort of activity only to make their living. Further, it is submitted that in all the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than 40 days and thus requested for taking a lenient view. 4 Apparently, the petitioners were taken into custody on the date of offence i.e. on 20.08.2006 and thereafter they were released on bail after 19 days. The said fact appears to be true from the judgment of the trial court. Further, as the petitioners could not pay the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each, after pronouncement of the judgment by the trial court they were taken into custody and it is only after bail was granted by the appellate court, in Crl.M.P No. 73 of 2009 they were released on bail on 17.06.2009. From the above it is clear that they were again in jail from 08.06.2009 to 17.06.2009. Similarly when the appeal filed by them was dismissed on 31.08.2010, they were taken into custody and as on today they are in jail. As the petitioners could not pay the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each, they have to undergo the default sentence of three months also. Hence the total sentence that has been awarded by the courts below works out to one year three months and the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than 40 days. 5 As the alleged offence took place on 20.08.2006 i.e. about four years back and though the same is an offence, it is done for the sake of making out their livelihood, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said substantive sentence of one year and default sentence of three months to that of the period already undergone. 6 Accordingly the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and the default sentence of three months imposed on the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 by the courts below is reduced to that of the period which the petitioners have already undergone by them. The petitioners are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other crime. 7 With the above modification this revision is disposed of at the stage of admission. --------------- 08.09.2010 Kvsn