Criminal Revision Case No. 2028 of 2004 · High Court

Order

1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram for the offence punishable under section 50-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P.1 and P.2. The trial court having analysed the said evidence found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Questioning the said judgment dated 24.03.2003 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2003 and the learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram by his judgment dated 29.03.2004 while dismissing the said appeal, however, modified the said sentence of imprisonment of one year to the extent of till raising of the court, however, maintained the imposition of fine amount.

The same is questioned by the petitioner in this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.4.1999 the Sub Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer, Vizianagaram and his staff during the course of raid found one P.Kanakarao at Rallamalapalli railway gate at 5.00 p.m. in possession of two black plastic cans containing five liters of ID arrack in each can. The contraband was seized under the cover of an occurrence report. While the Station House Officer was preparing the case record in P.R.No.229 of 1998-99, the petitioner forcibly entered the room of the Station House Officer and introduced himself with loud voice as leader of Scheduled Act and Scheduled Tribe and threatened the staff and questioned them as to why they arrested the said Kanakarao and he also obstructed the legitimate duties of the staff in the station.

3 Heard Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4 From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it appears that the said allegation against the petitioner appears to be true. In fact, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses to establish the guilt of the petitioner and all the witnesses have unequivocally deposed that the petitioner had committed the said offence and there is absolutely nothing to discredit the said testimony of the said witnesses. 5 In those circumstances, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference and accordingly this revision is dismissed. 27.01.2011 -----------------