Telangana High Court
Madapu Venkateshwarlu, Amberpet, ... vs State Of A.P., Through Sho Excise ... on 12 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.130 OF 2011
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 04.02.2011 in NDSC No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Ms. Yogita Prakash, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2007, the Prohibition and Excise Officials of State Task Force, Hyderabad along with their staff proceeded to Chinna Jatram Village. The Officials secured two mediators i.e., PWs.1 and 2 and all of them went to Gram Panchayat Office where, they found one White Tata goods carrier/Mini lorry bearing No.AP-22-T-5734 loaded with plastic crates filled with toddy and three persons were found there dumping plastic crates consisting of about 20 plastic crates of toddy, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 2 650 ml of toddy. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were the said persons and accused No.2, who was the driver ran away.
4. On enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 revealed their names and addresses. Upon failure to produce the licence or permit, they reloaded the same crates into the lorry. The Officials counted the plastic crates available in the said vehicle and found 440 plastic crates containing 3,432 litres of toddy. The Officials tested toddy on the spot and found that it was free from Chloral Hydrate. The Officials drew two samples each containing 350 ml. When the Officials enquired accused Nos.1 and 2 about the place of preparation of toddy, they stated that it was prepared under the Neem and Tamarind trees in between two Villages and the same was being supplied to the Chinna Jatram Village. Basing on the said facts, the present crime was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act").
5. The trial Court vide judgment cited supra, found the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the alleged offences and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two 3 years each for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. They were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offence under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount for both the offences, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each on each count. The sentence imposed against the appellants was directed to run concurrently.
6. The trial Court found accused No.3 not guilty for the alleged offences and acquitted him. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred this Revision.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that trial Court upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
4
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. PWs.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.3 and 4 are the Excise Sub- Inspector and the Excise Inspector in State Task Force during the relevant point of time. PW5 is the Excise Sub-Inspector who received the case papers along with accused Nos.1 and 2 and registered the case.
10. It is the version of PWs.3 and 4 that the toddy is being illegally prepared under the Neem and Tamarind trees in between two Villages and the accused persons were supplying the said toddy to various Villages situated at a nearby place. PWs.3 and 4, after noticing the dumping of toddy crates made every effort to find out the source of toddy and where it was being prepared. Accordingly, all of them went to the place and noted eight empty mud pots where toddy was being prepared. PWs.3 and 4 were consistent in their version in saying that remaining toddy and the said mud pots were destroyed.
11. Ex P2-Panchanama, would also reveal that it was prepared on 17.08.2007 at 6:00 A.M. in the place where accused Nos.1 5 and 2 were found dumping toddy crates from the vehicle. The presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 was also confirmed as they affixed their signatures in the said panchanama. All these aspects established that PWs.3 and 4 along with panch witnesses found accused Nos.1 and 2 unloading toddy crates from the lorry and involved in the illegal preparation of toddy.
12. Ex P6 would show that the sample collected was adulterated with Alprazolam, which is a psychotropic substance as notified in the schedule of N.D.P.S. Act. From the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, it was established that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of adulterated toddy and they had no licence or permit either to possess or to transport toddy. Therefore, the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act would come into play. Moreover, the accused failed to rebut such a presumption since the place in which the toddy was found was a public place, which was searched by the Officials. Therefore, the trial Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the alleged offences and rendered the judgment cited supra.
13. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 18.02.2011 suspended the sentence imposed against the appellants and enlarged them on bail on executing bond for an 6 amount of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
14. In the present case on hand, the trial Court found that the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 were guilty for the offences under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Section 22 of the NDPS Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
15. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the trial Court and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
16. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the appellants underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed against the appellants for both the offences to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
17. The appellants are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a year from 7 today. Failing which, the judgment dated 04.02.2011 in NDSC No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar stands good in all respects.
18. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 12.03.2024 ESP