IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1352 OF 2007 Between:
Kavali Chennaiah & Anr. … Revision Petitioners/Appellants Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP .… Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioners : Sri M. Damodar Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1352 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 05/10/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2005 on the file of III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, [FTC], Mahbubnagar at Gadwal, whereunder judgment dated 23/07/2005 in CC.No. 110 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Mahbubnagar district, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Devarkadra Police Station filed charge sheet against Revision Petitioners alleging that on 22/10/2001 both accused were found transporting chloral-hydrate in Ambassdor car bearing No.AP-22/6732 and that they were intercepted at Koyalasagar cross-road by Sub-Inspector of Police and two constables along with mediators and the chloral-hydrate was seized from dicky of the car under a panchanama and samples were drawn from the material seized and the same was sent to analysis and the analyst confirmed that chloral-hydrate is used for preparing illicit distilled liquor and thereby accused committed offence punishable under section 34 [a] of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 on behalf of prosecution. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found revision petitioners guilty for offence under section 34 [a] of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and convicted them to suffer one year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Mahbubnagar and III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, [FTC] Mahbubnagar at Gadwal on a re- appraisal of evidence confirmed both conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present criminal revisionh is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Advocate for Revision Petitioners submitted that except the evidence of official witnesses, there is no independent evidence to support prosecution case. He submitted that the mediators, said to be present at the time of seizure of contraband have not supported prosecution case and other witnesses are official witnesses on the basis of whose evidence, both trial court and appellate court have convicted the Revision Petitioners, therefore, the judgments of the courts below is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that if his argument is not accepted some lenient view may be taken in the sentence.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have concurrently held that offence under section 34 [a] of AP Excise Act is duly proved and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
9. Now the point for consideration is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, proper and correct ?”
10. P O I N T : According to prosecution on 22/10/2001 A-2 purchased chloral-hydrate weighing about 222 KGs worth of Rs.44,400=00 and when A-1 was trying to sell the Chloral-hydrate as no one came forward, they have decided to sell the same in Makthal and with that view they left for Makthal in Ambassador Car and on the way both A-1 and A-2 were caught by Sub-Inspector of Police Devarkadra at Kollsagar cross-road along with the material and the Sub-Inspector of Police forwarded samples for analysis and the analyst report reveal that the material seized is Chloral- hydrate substance meant for preparation of illicit distilled liquor.
11. To prove the charge levelled against Revision Petitioners, prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 deposed that during night time he along with Sub-Inspector of Police and Police Constables proceeded to cross-road of Kollsagar and while inspecting vehicles at about 03:15 p.m., one Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-22/6732 coming from Mahbubnagar side was stopped and on seeing the Police A-1 and A-2 tried to run away and that the Sub-Inspector of Police with the help of his staff caught hold of them and interrogated. During interrogation, they revealed their names and confessed that they are transporting Chloral-hydrate from Raichur to Mahbubnagar and on verification the Sub-Inspector of Police found six black colour plastic cans with Chloral-hydrate in the dicky of the car and that the same was seized in the presence of mediators under a panchanama and that the mediators who were examined as PWs 3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case. But both trial court and appellate court observed that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police and Constables who intercepted the Ambassador car and found the contraband is convincing and that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these witnesses and accepted their evidence.
12. Now the contention of Advocate for Revision Petitioners is that both the courts relying on the interested testimony of official witnesses convicted the Revision Petitioners, and therefore, the conviction recorded against Revision Petitioners is liable to be set aside.
13. As seen from the material, both mediators; PWs 3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case but they admitted their signatures on the panchanama and the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 is fully supported and corroborated with the contents of panchanama, which is marked as Ex.P-3.
14. As seen from the record, the signatures of independent witnesses on the panchanama are marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2. Both trial court and appellate court after taking into consideration the contents of panchanama accepted the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5, I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of trial court and appellate court. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, simply because the witnesses; PWs 1, 2 and 5 are Police Officials, their evidence cannot be discarded on that ground unless they have some motive or enmity to speak against the Revision Petitioners. As seen from the evidence there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5. Further no motive or enmity is attributed to these witnesses, therefore, both trial court and appellate court were right in accepting the evidence of these witnesses and both courts have not committed any error in convicting the Revision Petitioners.
15. For the above reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to discard the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 6 and there are also no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to conviction recorded against the Revision Petitioners.
16. Now coming to sentence part, trial court imposed one year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000=00 for each of the Revision Petitioner. Now the argument of Advocate for Revision Petitioners is that the Revision Petitioners are not habitual offenders and that they are not involved in any similar offence either prior to this case or subsequent to this case, therefore, some lenient view may be taken in respect of sentence.
17. Considering the submissions of Advocate for Revision Petitioners, I feel that one year Rigorous Imprisonment can be reduced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment while confirming a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand only] each.
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months from one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten thousand only] is confirmed. Trial court shall take steps for apprehension of the Revision Petitioners to undergo un-expired portion of sentence, if any.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
22/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1352 OF 2007 Circulation No. 74 Date: 22/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43