THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.245 of 2008 25-07-2014 BETWEEN:
Golla Mogulappa And Another …..Appellants/accused AND State of Andhra Pradesh by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.245 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 and A.2 challenging the Judgment, dated 19.02.2008, in N.D.S.C. No.11 of 2006 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahboobnagar, whereby the learned Judge found the appellants/A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, and Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 02-08-2005 P.W.2 and P.W.4, Excise Officials, secured the presence of P.W.1, panch witness and visited the house of A.1 on information about the illegal selling of toddy and that they searched and found four mud pots of toddy each containing of 50 liters, and that they found A.2 in the said house. On enquiry, A2 revealed that A.1 and A.2 are selling toddy for their livelihood without any valid permit or licence. P.W.4, Excise Sub-Inspector took a little quantity of toddy from each pot and poured the same into test tube and tested the same with prescribed chemicals and found that it is adulterated. A case was registered against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, and Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act and after completing the investigation charge sheet was filed.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, and Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by them.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellants/A.1 and A.2 are the illiterate coolies and they are not having any criminal background and as such, lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 8(c) read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, modifies and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which the appellants/A.1 and A.2 have already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 25.07.2014 pln