[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.363 OF 2007 Dated 4-7-2014 Between:
E.Maha Lakshmi.
And:
..Petitioner.
State of A.P. represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police P.S. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.363 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 18-1-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2004 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi whereunder judgment dated 4-11-2004 in C.C.No.13 of 2001 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupathi filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 23-4-1998 at about 8-30 PM., the accused was found in possession of 60 arrack sachets of each 100 ml capacity at Ramakrishna Deluxe Theatre junction, Tirupati and selling in public place violating A.P.Excise Rules and that the Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested her and seized the arrack sachets in the presence of mediators under proceedings and thereafter, registered crime No.129 of 1998 and during investigation, the seized sachets were sent to the Analyst and on an analysis, the analyst opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor and thereby, the accused committed offences punishable under provisions of A.P.Excise Act, 1958. On these allegations, trial court examined two witnesses and marked five documents on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act and convicted her for the said offence and sentenced her to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi on a reappraisal of evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
According to grounds of revision, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any other evidence and both the witnesses being interested witnesses, relying on such evidence for convicting the revision petitioner is not legal. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has drafted only police proceedings for the alleged seizure and they have not applied provisions of Section 55 of Excise Act and that is a lacunae in the prosecution case. It is further contended that there is no legal evidence to connect the revision petitioner with the alleged offence and therefore, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence is fully supported and corroborated with each other and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated their evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, on 23-4-1998 at about 8- 30 P.M., on a credible information, P.W.2 along with staff proceeded to Ramakrishana Deluxe Theatre junction and there, he found the accused selling arrack sachets putting them in a bag and that he seized 60 arrack sachets of each 100 ml capacity and that he arrested the accused and drafted proceedings. According to prosecution, the accused was selling each sachets at Rs.20/- and eking out her livelihood. According to prosecution, a sample was drawn and it was sent to Chemical Analysis and the analyst after laboratory tests found that it is a illicitly distilled liquor. To prove its case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined. P.W.1 is Head Constable and P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer.
Now the main contention of the revision petitioner is that no independent witnesses are examined.
As seen from the material, P.W.2 clearly stated that he has tried for independent mediators but no one has come forward and therefore, he has drafted police proceedings and seized contra band. Though it is contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 are enimical towards the accused, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the same. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 are cross-examined, on behalf of revision petitioner, and it was elicited in the cross examination that both P.Ws.1 and 2 tried for mediators and no one came forward to act as mediator. Except putting suggestions to P.Ws.1 and 2, nothing was elicited from them to support defence version. The learned trial judge after elaborate discussion of the evidence found that both P.Ws.1 and 2 tried their level best to secure the mediators but as no one came forward to act as mediator, they have drafted police proceedings and seized sachets. Here as seen from the evidence, seizure of sachets from revision petitioner cannot be doubted because there is no suggestion denying the seizure. The only suggestion put to P.W.2 is that a false case is filed against the petitioner for statistical purpose.
As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, both trial court and appellate court have rightly assessed evidence, and came to a right conclusion and there are no incorrect findings on any of the material aspects either in the judgment of the trial court or in the judgment of the appellate court.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the conviction and sentence is confirmed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 4-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.363 OF 2007 Dated 4-7-2014