Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: brandy in Ramisetty Venkateswara Rao vs State on 31 March, 2004Matching Fragments
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :
On 30-3-1995, P. W. 2 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise, Tenali along with P.W. 3 the constable of the department and other staff found the accused near R.T.C. bus stand, Tenali loitering in suspicious circumstances. The accused was apprehended. The attempt made to secure independent mediator was not successful. The accused was subjected to search by P.W. 2 with the help of other excise officials and found four brandy bottles of 750 ml., each. They also found brandy bottles 350 ml., in possession of the accused and all the bottles contained the seals of 'McDowell company' which manufactures the contents of the bottles. The bottles, which are M.Os. 2 to 6, showed that they were for sale in Tamil Nadu. P.W. 2 took one of the bottles 750 ml., i.e. M.O.5 as a sample. He also drew M.O.6 as a sample. Identification slips were pasted and the accused was arrested under a cover of special report under Ex. P. 2. M.O. 1 Zip bag in which M.Os. 2 to 6 were found being carried by the accused. Therefore, a charge under Section 7 read with 8(b) of A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was made.
In the evidence P.W. 3 who is Prohibition and Excise Constable said in the chief-examination that they have found four Mc.Dowell whisky bottles 750 ML each and one Mc.Dowell whisky bottle of 375 ML capacity in the bag of the accused. However, in the late part of his chief-examination he stands corrected and deposed that the bottles seized are Mc.Dowell Brandy bottles and not Mc.Dowell whisky bottles. Thus, even though at the outset P.W. 3 said that the bottles seized are whisky, at a later part he corrected himself and said that they are brandy bottles. This is also a minor discrepancy, on the basis of which prosecution case cannot be thrown out. As a matter of principle it is laid down in Surendra v. State of Orissa, 1977 Cri LJ 192 (sic) that in criminal trial, slight discrepancies even in the evidence of the eye witness is not material. P.W. 3 has identified the bottles and bag to be those which were recovered from the accused. P.W.2 has also identified the property seized from the accused and they were marked as M.Os. 1 to 6.