APHC010015762010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2213/2010 Between: Payala Gangayya ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision was preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 (in brevity ‘the Act’). The learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (in brevity ‘the Appellate Court’) passed the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007 dated 23.11.2010 whereby and whereunder dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota in C.C.No.391 of 2005 dated 10.01.2007 wherein the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the revisionist for the above mentioned offence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the revisionist should suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Venkata Sailendra.G, learned Counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 3. Sri Venkata Sailendra.G, learned counsel for the revisionist reiterated the grounds of the revision and brought to the notice of this Court that the revisionist was allegedly carrying 15 nip bottles, each bottle containing 180 ml quantity, in total 15x180 ml = 2,700 ml., which quantity is within the permissible limits as per Rule (3) of A.P.Excise (Transportation of maximum quantity of intoxicants) Rules, 1972 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) whereunder the permissible limit to transport Indian Liquor is six Quart Bottles. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court and the learned Magistrate grossly erred in finding the revisionist guilty for the said offence. Therefore, there was a material error of law apparent on the face of the record and requested to allow the revision. 4. Mr.Somayagi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the Rule (3) of ‘the Rules’ were in force at the time of commission of the alleged offence and these Rules were again modified in the year 2019. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2010 5. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2005 at about 12.15 hours, while the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, S.Kota was conducting patrolling duty along with Constable and Head Constable of excise department, the revisionist was carrying a bag with Indian Made Liquor (I.M.L) in bottles, as he failed to produce any bill, permit or licence and as no mediators were secured, the Sub Inspector of Police had verified the bag and found 15 nip bottles of G.R.Whisky. The Sub Inspector of Police drew sample of one nip bottle under due procedure and arrested the revisionist under the cover of a report and registered a case against him in Crime No.24 of 2005-06 under Section 34(a) of ‘the Act’ and forwarded the revisionist to the judicial remand. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police laid charge sheet. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined three (3) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. 6. The learned Magistrate after conducting the trial convicted and sentenced the revisionist as mentioned supra. No where either in the judgments of the learned Magistrate or the Appellate Court there was any reference either from the prosecution side or from the revisionist side that the seized contraband was well within the permissible limits. 7. The relevant portion of Rule (3) of ‘the Rules’ reads as under: “Maximum Quantity of intoxicants to be transported without permit:- 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2010 No intoxicant specified in column (1) of the table shall be transported if it is in excess of the quantity specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof except under a permit. 1 Foreign Liquor Six Quart Bottles 2 Indian Liquor Six Quart Bottles 3 Gulmohwa Five Kilograms 4 Denatured Spirit Three Bulk Liters 5 Methylated Spirit Three Bulk Liters 6 Methyl Alcohol Three Bulk Liters 7 Beer Six quart Bottles 8 Arrack 600 ml 9 Toddy Ten Bulk Liters 10 Rectified spirit No quantity 11 Intoxicating Drugs No quantity 12 Every other liquid consisting or containing alcohol except medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured under a licence granted under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)Act, 1995 No quantity Provided that in the areas notified under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, no permit for transport of the intoxicant within the said area by any member of a Scheduled Tribe shall be necessary even if it is in excess of the quantity prescribed above”. 8. A fair reading of the Rule (3), it is clear that Indian Liquor intoxicant shall not be transported if it is in excess to 6 Quart Bottles. One Quart Bottle is equivalent to 1.136 liters as per U.K.Quart conversion and 6 Quart bottles is equivalent to 6.819 liters. The seized contraband was 2.7 Liters only. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2010 9. In view of the fact that the revisionist was authorized to carry or transport 6 Quart Bottles with him, transportation or possession of 15 nip bottles of G.R.Whisky from him would not amount to any offence charged. Therefore, the learned Trial Court and also the learned Appellate Court erred in taking note of ‘the Rules’ and appreciate them in correct perspective. There was error of law apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are un-sustainable. Accordingly, they are liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007 dated 23.11.2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram holding that the revisionist is not guilty for the alleged offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota in C.C.No.391 of 2005 dated 10.01.2007 is also set aside. The revisionist is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 18.02.2025 sj 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2213 of 2010 91 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2213 of 2010 Date: 18.02.2025 sj