Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2004 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

petitioner/accused by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.98 of 2000 vide judgment dated

30.11.2004 in C.C.No.98 of 2000, was confirmed.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On receipt of a complaint from P.W.3-Gadiraju Suryanarayana Raju on 25.06.1999, P.W2-the then Assistant Director of Agriculture-cum-Seed Inspector, Bhimavaram, along with P.W.1-the then Agricultural Officer proceeded Srungavruksham village, and found storage of 254 seed bags weighing 7,620 Kgs of paddy seed in the godown of Venkata Bhagyalakshmi Bhavan, situated at P.P.Road, Srungavruksham. The accused is the owner of said bags. On demand, the accused confessed that he did not possess any licence to purchase or sell the paddy seeds and thereby contravened Clause 3 of Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) punishable under Section (1)(a) I & II and (1)b of Section 7 of the Act. P.W.1 seized the said bags under a cover of mediators report in the presence of mediators and sent the sample seeds to the Testing Laboratory, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, which in turn gave a report declaring that the sample as sub-standard and the minimum percentage of germination fixed under the Act is 80% and thereby the accused contravened Sub-Section (a) of Section 6 and sub-Section (b) of Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 and P22 were marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the defence.

The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3 of the Act punishable under Section (1)(a) I & II and (1)(b) of Section 7 of the Act and thereby convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.225 of 2004 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments impugned. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 11 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the lower appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court.

With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. 18th December, 2012 __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO