THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1176 of 2008 12-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Thootla Raghavender Goud And others AND …..Appellants/A.1 to A.4 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.1176 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.4 challenging the Judgment, dated 27.08.2008, in NDPS SC No.49 of 2006 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the learned Judge found the appellants/A.1 to A.4 guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (the NDPS Act) and Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days each for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on reliable information about the illegal toddy depot, on 07.08.2005, P.Ws.2 to 4, excise officials along with other staff, secured the presence of P.W.1 and another mediator, went to the place of occurrence and found A.1 to A.4, so also one tractor bearing No.AP 22 E/2876 and that on further verification, they found 32 plastic crates of toddy each crate containing 12 bottles of toddy in the said tractor and one cement tub of toddy and other materials. P.W.3, Excise Sub Inspector, took small quantity of toddy at random from the said bottles and tested with prescribed chemicals and that the said test did not yield positive result. On further suspicion that the said toddy was adulterated with any other intoxicants, the said Excise Sub Inspector had drawn two samples of toddy and seized the toddy under Panchanama, Ex.P.2. Basing on the said Panchanama, Ex.P.2, P.W.4, Excise Inspector, registered the case against the accused for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act. After completion of 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.6 and M.Os.1 to 7 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 to A.4 guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise 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 to A.4 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellants/A.1 to A.4 are the only breadwinners in their respective families and they are the first offenders and they have to lookafter their children, 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 to A.4 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 to A.4 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise 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 to A.4 have already undergone under each offence. The sentence of fine and default condition, under each count, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 12.12.2014 pln