IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2289 of 2010 Revision filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the calendar and judgment dated 30-11-2010 in Crl.A.No.183 of 2009 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), East Godavari District Rajahmundry, in so far as confirmed portion of conviction and sentence i: concerned as against the calendar and Judgment dated 05-08-2009 in CC.No.701 of 2006 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. at IS Between: Choilangi Srinu, S/o. Surya Rao, R/o. Unduru Village Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Appellant/2"'^ Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2291 OF 2010 Revision filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the ■/ calendar and judgment dated 30-11-2010 in CrlANo.176 of 2009 passed by the yi Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in so far as confirmed portion of conviction and sentence is concerned as against the calendar and Judgment dated 05-08-2009 in CC.No.701 of 2006 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. at Between: Valluri Subba Rao, S/o. Musalayya, R/o. Tadigoyyee Village Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Appellant/1®^ Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010438612010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2289 and 2291 of 2010 Crl.R.C.No.2289 of 2010 Between: ...PETITIONER Chollangi Srinu AND ...RESPONDENT The State of Andhra Pradesh CrI.R.C.No. 2291 of 2010 Between: ...PETITIONER Valluri Subba Rao, AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLP , Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 20iu ' Dated 08.04.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2289 and 2291 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 are heard and disposed of by this Common Order since the Calendar Case is the same on the file of one Court, albeit petitioners are different. 2. The revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgments dated 30.11.2010 in Crl.A.Nos.176 and 183 of 2009on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8 (e) of the A.P Prohibition Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) imposed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Ramachandrapuram, by reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year to Rigorous Imprisonment for five months in C.A.No.176 of 2009 and four months in C.A.No.183 of 2009 wcfe judgment dated 05.08.2009. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners 3. and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, argued that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate ‘that the alleged seizure of contraband was not in exclusive possession of anybody; there was no compliance of Section 100 of 4. Dr.YLR, J CrI.R.C,Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 Dated 08.04.2025 ‘the Cr.P.C’; the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt; no independent witnesses were examined except P.W.1 and remaining witnesses were interested witnesses; the alleged scene of offence is busy locality; and urged to allow the criminal revision case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner/A1 was in incarceration for 22 days; the petitioner/A2 was in incarceration for 33 days. The petitioners’ right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision case as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed and urged to impose the sentence of imprisonment to which they had already undergone while volunteering that amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each may be imposed a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge framed against them; the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and the documents filed by the prosecution and found the petitioners guilty; the learned Appellate Court also having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 428 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence. 5. an as cases. 6. 4 Dp.YLk ' Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2oio, Dated 08.04.2025 Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 7. 8. Now the point for consideration is: "Whether the judgment in Crl.A.Nos.176 and 183 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper w/f/? respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?" It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwarl Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under: 9. "12. ... We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself Indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly. It could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except In exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not ^(2002) 6 see 650 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 Dated 08.04.2025 be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acguittal by a private party. 13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re- appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph 10. No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt, has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. ’’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^, at 11. Paragraph No.7 held as under: “1. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court ^AIR 1951 SC 196 "air 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr'.YLK, Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 20lo Dated 08.04.2025 only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an In such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles. ” 12. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D Stephens and K Cl^innaswamy Reddy. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 Dated 08.04,2025 0^ It is clearly established through the evidence of witnesses of the 13. prosecution that on 21.04.2001 at about 5.00 p.m. on receipt of credible information, P.W.SA/.Sudheer, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Kakinada had conducted a raid along with P.W.I/P.Rama Rao, Village Administrative Officer, K.Pusala Rao, Village Servant of Pothakota Village respectively, B.Venkateswara Rao, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector Enforcement Wing, Kakinada, Y.G.V. Ramana, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Kakinada, G.M. Mohanarao, Head Constable Enforcement Wing, Kakinada and Excise Constable, Enforcement Wing Kakinada with a view to detect Prohibition and Excise offences, reached at the Teki diverted canal bridge, Rajavyri village, hamlet of Pathakota village of Pamarru Mandal and sitting there beside the greenwood trees. At that time. A.1 came from Rajavyri village on a moped and discussed with A.2 to A.4 and brought one gunny bundle from the country boat and kept it on the moped with the help of A.2. The raiding party called them to stop to catch hold, but A.1 to A.4 jumped from the country boat into the river and absconded in the presence of mediators. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector examined the gunny bundle in the 14. presence of mediators and found I.A. Arrack packets in it. The raiding party also examined the country boat and found 7 gunny bundles in it. On examination of the 8 gunny bundles, found 530 liters of Arrack. On interrogation, A.1 confessed that he purchased 50 liters of \.p. Arrack from A.3 8 Dr.-YLR, j CrI.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 > Dated 08.04.2025 and A.4 to sell at retail prices at his residential house and kept it on his own moped and failed to produce any record relating to the moped. He also stated that the country boat is his own. Prohibition and Excise Inspector also interrogated A.2 for which he stated that he is working under A.3 and A.4 on a daily wages Rs.100/- per day as coolie for carrying I.D. Arrack gunny bags. He also stated that the absconded A.3 and A.4 were the owners of the contraband and transported the arrack by supplying to surrounding villages for selling at retail price through moped of A.1. Prohibition and Excise Inspector, explained the committed offence to 15. A.1 and A.2 in the presence of mediators P.W.I/P.Rama Rao and K.Pusala Rao and arrested them, seized the contraband along with a moped and country boat under the cover of the mediators report drafted by V.A.O. of Kota village and signed by the Village Servant and other raid party officials at the scene of offence, he had drawn 300 ml of arrack from 8 polythene arrack bundles and poured them into 8 separate white cleaned bottles as samples and sealed them and affixed identity slips on the bottles with the signatures of VAO and raid party officials to send them for chemical analysis/A.1 and A.2 along with vehicle i.e., moped and country boat forwarded to the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Ramachandrapuram for further action by Prohibition and Excise Inspector. Ch.V.Ramakrishna, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Ramachandrapuram registered the mediators report as FIR in Cr.No.12/2j3^1-02 under Sec.7A of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 Dated 08.04.2025 «r Excise of Ramachandrapuram Prohibition and Excise Station. On the next day i.e., on 22.04.2001 A.1 and A.2 along with bottles produced before the Court. The Sub Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer, Rajahmundry sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Kakinada for analysis, wherein it is opined that the contraband is to be found as "Illicitly distilled liquor injurious to health". During investigation, it is revealed that A.3 and A.4 are absconding and their whereabouts are not known. They were not surrendered before any Court of Law. 16. Therefore, the Conviction for the offence under Section 7A read with 8 (e) of ‘the Act.,’ shall be maintained. In Santhosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation" the Hon’ble Apex 17. Court referred judgment in N. Sumumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara^ and commuted the sentence under Clause (d) of Section 433 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and imposed Rs.10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court Guthula Ramakrishna V. A.P®, while dismissing the criminal revision case held that the minimum sentence provided by law cannot be reduced further while quoting the judgments of the Apex Court in State of MP v. Vikram Das^ and the decision 18. ‘'2000(9) see 151 ^ Air 1995 SeW 1983 ''2022 see online AP 156 '(2019) 4 see 125 10 Dr.YLH%; " Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 20lo , Dated 08.04.2025 I in Meera v. State of Tamil Nadu® wherein it is held that merely because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. However, in Kesuboyina Kanakayya v. A.P® another learned Single Judge of this Court instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment of one year it was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Further, this Court perused amended provisions of the Act and Section 11 .B of the Act, which reads as follows: "4. Insertion of new section 11B. In the principal Act, after section 11 A, the following section shall be inserted, namely: "Compounding of Offences: 11.B(1) The Collector or any Prohibition and Excise Officer specially empowered "in that behalf may accept from any person ??? is reasonably suspected of having committee ??? offence falling under clause (a) or sub clause (i) of clause (b) or the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) it was is force, of section or ??? a sum of money as may be prescribed ??? not exceeding the maximum fine which can be imposed for the offence under the provisions of the Act, by way of compensation for the offence which may have been committed and in all cases in which any property has been seized as liable for confiscation under this Act, may release the same payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer: Provided that where the property so seized is a liquor produced or manufactured in contravention of this Act, such liquor shall not be released but shall be disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed: Provided further, that such sum of money shall not be accepted from any person who is reasonably, suspected of having committed an offence under sub-clause (i) of clause 19. 20. on * 2022 see online Se31 ®erl.R.e.No.2145 of 2009 29.01.2024 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl,R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 2010 Dated 08.04.2025 (b) of section 8 without the prior approval of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. (2) On the payment by the person the sum of money or the value or both, as the case may be, such person, if in custody shall be set at liberty, and all the property seized may be released and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such person in any Criminal Court. The acceptance of compensation shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal and in no case any farther proceedings be taken against such person or property with reference to the same Act." 21 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santhosh’s judgment commuted the sentence of imprisonment of fine and sentenced the petitioner there to undergo the imprisonment which he had already undergone, even though there was statutory prescription imposition of minimum sentence of imprisonment. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar^°. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^\ For the above reasons, these criminal revision cases are disposed of 23. confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 7A read with 8(e) of ‘the Act.,’ and while sentencing the petitioners to suffer imprisonment to which they had already undergone, while imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- each on the petitioners excluding the fine amount paid by them pursuant to the judgment 10 Air 1979 SC 1360 2000 (1) BUR 37 12 Dr.YLR^ Crl.R.C.Nos.2289 and 2291 of 20lo Dated 08.04.2025 of the learned Trial Court, within two months from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which, the petitioners shall suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Magistrate of I Class of Ramachandrapuram shall take necessary follow-up steps. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. i \ 24. Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of Class, Ramachandrapuram East Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies TK Vila HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.Nos.2289 & 2291 of 2010 if 2 3 JUN 2025 nwtStctioi^* C9 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES