The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms. Talat Madiha, Amicus Curiae Counsel for the Respondent : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER a I THE HOIVOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL gRlryr-r NAL REVISION CASE No.L740 0r' 2013 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is {iled by the petitioners against the judgment dated 2O.Og.2Ol3 in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated j,T.O2.2Ol2 in c.c'No.79 of 2o11 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Ms.Talat Madiha, learned ,Amicus CuicLe'appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, rearned Assistant Public Proseculor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2009, the Inspector of P.lice, Saidabad police Station, Hyderabad stated that, he received a complaint from LW1 stating that, as per the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner ol police, Malakpet Division, LW 1 :rlong with LWs.2 to 4 and others proceeded to Champapet Road, near Sama Narsimha Reddy Function Hall and S.V.Wine Shop Iocated at the premises bearing No. l7- 1- ./ l 386/Al3&,4, Champapet, Hyderabad and that they found lO to 15 persons standing and sitting in front of the said shop, consuming liquor and creating public nuisance in the vicinity; one person was sitting in the cash counter of the wine shop; on enquiry, he revealed his identity as D. Hari Kumar Reddy, i.e., petitioner No.2/accused No.2 and that he was working as Cashier/ Man ager; on seeing police, the other employees ran away. On demand, accused No.2 produced the licence of the shop bearing No.4/08- IO /DPl dated 27.06.2OO8 issued by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Dhoolpet (FAC) in the name of P.Sridhar i.e., petitioner No. 1/accused No.1; doing the business of selling IMFL & Foreign Liquor in the premises bearing No.17,1-386 /Al3&4, Champapet, Hyderabad under the name I and style as M/s.S.V.Wines; on personal verification, LWl found 5 persons consuming liquor in the shop.

4. It is further stated that another team consisting of LW2, Ravi Kumar, lnspector of Police along with LW4/Ashok Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police and others found 37 people/customers consuming liquor in the cellar portion of wine shop. On enquiry, it was revealed that the license holder Sridhar and Manager/Cashier D.Hari Kumar Reddy of the wine shop were \ 7 -) permitting the people/ customers to consume liqtror in the said place and sr.rpplying liquor bottles to them. LW I , Inspector of Police summoned two mediators LWS and LW6 to the said place and drafted scene of observation-cum-seizure panchanama and got videographecl the scene through LW7. On checl<ing the cellar, LW I found plastic chairs, plastic stools, plastic glasses, paper plates and seized four tables, eight plastic chairs and other articles from the scene under the cover of panchanama; took accused No.2 into custody, produced the accused, customers and seized material before the Station House Officer, lor taking necessary legal action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, LW7/ Sub-lnspector of police registered a case in crime No.57 of 2oo9 under Section 36(1)(c)(d) of Andhra pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short, ,,the Act") and handed over the case file to LW8/lnspector of police and took up investigation. During the course ol' investigation, LWg examined LWs. I to 4 and recorded the statements. LWS took accused No.2 into custody on 13.o2.2oo9 along with the seized material. During the course of interrogation, accused No.2 confessed to have committed the offence on the instructions of accused No.1 and that he is permitting and allo'*,ing the people/customers to consume liquor in the premises and remanded to judicial clrstodv Thus, the -/ 4 inve stigation revealed that the accused Persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 36(1)(c)(d) of the Act' 5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17 '02'2012 in C.C.No.79 of 2Oll found petitioners/ accused Nos' 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 36(1)(c)(d) of the Act; convicted and sentenced them to undergo simpre imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each and to pay fine of Rs' 1'OOO/- each' in default, to pay the fine amount' they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months each' for the offence under Section 36(1)(c) of the Act and sentenced th'em to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each and to pay fine of Rs'SOO/- each' in default' of payment of fine amount, the petitioners were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month eacli for the offence under Section 36(1)(d) of the Act' Both.the sentences' as well as the default sentences were to run concurrently' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an Appeal'

6.TheappellateCourt,videimpugnedjudgment,dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court' Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred the present Revision' t I I 1 i I I 7 5

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the case of t.he prosecution, petitioner No. 1 was not present in the premises and as such the question of contravening any provisions of the Act does not arise; moreover, the prosecution has not filed any photographs in proof of the presence of alleged persons drinking in the premises; the trial court as well as the appellate court fa,erl to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision. .

8. Learned Assistant public prosecutor contencled that the trial Court as weil as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision_

9. On behalf of the prosecution, the triai Court examined PWs. 1 to S and marked Exs.pl to p4 and MOs. I to 5. On behalf of the defence none were examined and no document was marked' Upon carefur consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that pWs.1 to 4 caught accused No'2 red-handedry, recorded his confessional statement incruding seizure of MOs. I to 5 ancl found that the story of prosecution was ./ I I I 6 believable; thcre is no whisper with regard to denial of seizure of l) MOs.l to 5 under trx P1. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 coupled rvith MOs.1 to 5 it rnas cleari-v established that accused Nos.l and 2 allowed 38 persons to consume liquor at the S.V.Wine shop and contravened Section 36(1)(c)(d) of the Act. Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

10. In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence available on record, found that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 is convincing and corroborated with each other and that there is no infirmity in concluding the guiit of the accused. Therefore, the appellate Court rendered its judgment. 1 1. In the present case on hand, the trial Court as well as appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioners were guilty of the offence under Section 36(1)(c)(d) of the Act, which finding, in my considered vier.r,, docs not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no reason to interfere u,ith the u,eil considered judgments passed by both the Courts.

12. This Court vide order datecl 21.O8.2O 13 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners and l , released them on bail on the same terms and conditions on which they vue,:e enlarged on bail by the Court be1or.r, during trial. 13- Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioners underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as eleven long years have elapsed from the date of Iiling of this Revision, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioners to the period of imprisonment already undergdne by them-

14. Except tlie above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Miscellan,-'ous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPI.JTY REGISTRAR r'l\ SECTION OFFICER \ I To,

1. The ll Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Speciat Judiciat Fiist Ctass I/rgi"tr;;f; Erllr. .r."r Hyderabad "Cuntrrf prironl'Hrng, Reddy District 3. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda 4. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5_ One CC to Ms. Talat Madiha, Amicus Curiae IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OtJT] ADK/DL *? HIGH COUR DATED:0710'1t2025 ORDER CRLRC.N o.1-,7 40 of 2013 + o SfA 1 Q^ 2 7 rEB 2025 t: ) {)* €spatcH r! DISMISSING THE CRLRC WITH MODIF!I]ATION @ 2K