IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1702 OF 2009 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment and sentence passed by the learned III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram in Crl.A.No. 223/2008, dated 08.10.09 wherein confirmed the Judgment and sentence passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.335/2007, dated 13.10.08. Between: Komati Parvathi, W/o Venkateswarlu, Age :38, Occ: Coolie, R/o Chinna Amiram Village, Bhimavaram Rural Mandal. ...Accused/Appellant/Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi, Through the S.H.O., Proh. & Excise Station, Bhimavaram, W.G. District. ...Complainant/Respondents/Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1702 of 2009 , ^ ORDER: jhe Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.223 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, West Godavari district, confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 8(b)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for brevity ‘the Act’) imposed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, sentencing the petitioner for Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine for an amount of Rs.5,000/- vide judgement dated 13.10.2008 in C.C.No.335 of 2007. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sri K.L.N.Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, argued that the learned Courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner, even though she had not committed any offence, as P.W.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution, and thus Ex.P1 cannot be said to have been proved; no independent witnesses were examined: the Investigating Officers evidence is not acceptable: and it is urged to allow the criminal revision case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner was in jail for 13 days. The petitioner’s right to speedy disposal of the criminal reyision case 2. 3. 4. as 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed and urged to impose the sentence of imprisonment to which she had already undergone, while volunteering that an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) may additionally be imposed as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision case. 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 Petitioner; the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and the documents filed by the prosecution and found the petitioner 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 charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities and misreading of the evidence. 5. 6. 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. Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.223of 2008 dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learnedlll Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),Bhimavaram, West Godavari district, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or Judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. 3 ■ Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 % It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under: 8. “12. ...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 acquittal 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 9. 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 ofjustice. 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. ’’ 10. 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 ^(2002) 6 see 650 ^AIR 1951 Se 196 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 0 case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and D Stephens. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.02.2006 at about 1:15 p.m on receipt of credible information, the Prohibition and Exercise Officials had reached to the house of the petitioner, found mica bag containing 150 sachets each contains with 100 ML of I.D.Arrakin total 15 litres, seized the contraband under the cover of mediators report, arrested the petitioner and forwarded to the Magistrate for judicial remand, the samples were collected and forwarded to the chemical analyst for report.' Charge sheet was laid for the offence punishable under Section 7A.r/w 8(e) of ‘the Act’, on receipt of chemical analyst report which certified that the samples containing illicit distilled liquor injurious to health. 12. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4, marked Exs.P1 to 9 and M.O.No.1. P.W.1 and 2 though not supported the case of the prosecution, they admitted their signatures on Ex.PI. P.W.3 supported the case of the prosecution. Ex.PS and Ex.P4 sample bottles and Ex.P6 letter of advice coupled with Ex.P7 chemical analyst report reveal that the seized contraband was illicit liquor injurious to health. Ex.PS reveals that the contraband was subjected to destruction through proper channel. M.O.No.1 sample arrack bottle reveals that it was injurious illicit liquor. P.W.4 also supported the case of the prosecution. Even though P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence given by P.Ws.3 and 4 inspiring the confidence of the learned Trial Court, that is reason why, the learned Jrial Court convicted 5 ■Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 per the charge. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. There is no misreading of the e\/idence and material irregularity. There is no flagrant miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 8(b)(1) of ‘the maintained. and sentenced the petitioner as Act.,’ shall be 13. In Santhosh Kumar V. Municipal Corporation^ the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring judgment in N. Sumumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara^ commuted the sentence under Clause (d) of Section Cr.P.C., and imposed Rs. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment. The Hon ble Apex Court in Santhosh Kumar supra at paragraph Nos.5 & 6 held as under; “5. This case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this Court, as this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 10,000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the' appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will bail. ” 433 of ‘the 15. remain on 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Sumumaran Nair supra at paragraph Nos.2 & 3 held as follows; ^ 2000.(9) see 151 Air 1995 SCW 1983 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 “2. It has vehemently been urged by Mr V.A. Bobde, learned Senior Counsel that compliance of Rule 18 was mandatory and since there M/as an infraction in the instant case, the view of the trial court deserves to prevail. We fail to see how there is violation of the said Rule. The Food Inspector as PW 1 was categoric that he had sent the specimen impression of the seal separately to the Public Analyst under sealed cover. It is true that he did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt vide which the specimen impression of the seal M/as sent separately. The Food Inspector could be dubbed wrong if his statement had been challenged In cross-examination. As is obvious, the Food Inspector deposed to the observance of the requirement of Rule 18 but, at best, can be said not to have introduced corroborative evidence to his word. But, if the word of the Food Inspector is not challenged in cross-examination and is otherwise found corroborated from the report of the Public Analyst wherein the necessary recitals, even though in printed form, are available, compliance of Rule 18 becomes obvious. Such report by the Public Analyst is ex facie evidence. There are methods to challenge the same which were not resorted to. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal on the aforesaid ground. 3. The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘‘the appropriate government” is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs 6000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 15. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Guthula Ramakrishna v. State of A.P^, while dismissing the criminal revision case held that the minimum sentence provided by law cannot be reduced further^ by quoting the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of MP v. Vikram Das® and Meera v. State of Tamil Nadu^ wherein it is held that merely ^2022 see online AP 156 ‘'(2019) 4 see 125 ^2022 see online se 31 7 Dr.YLRJ CrI.R.C.No.1702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is noground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. Whereas, another learned Single Judge of this Court in Kesuboyina Kanakayya v. A.P® instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment of year, a statutory minimum prescription, the accused therein was directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. 16. one 17. Further, as per Section 11B of ‘the Act’ the offences are compoundable by Collector or any Officer of Prohibition and Excise specially empowered in that behalf by ordering maximum fine which can be imposed for the offence under the provisions of ‘the Act.,’ by way of compensation for the offence. The acceptance of compensation shall be deemed to amounting to acquittal. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santhosh supra commuted the sentence of imprisonment of fine and sentenced the petitioner therein to undergo the imprisonment which he had already undergone, even though there was statutory prescription of imposition of minimum sentence of imprisonment. Of course, in a different context relating to tjie Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh®, in para-Nos. 5 & 6 held as under: Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial court and the High Court while 18. ‘5. Crl.R.C.No.2145 of 2009 dated 29.01.2024 ® AIR 1988 see 1789 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not make clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter. 6. While dismissing the appeal, we would, however, limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and sustain, the fine along with the default sentence. ” The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Des Raj v. State of Haryana^®, in para-Nos.8 & 9 held as under; “8. The respective arguments have been considered carefully. It Is not disputed that the sample in question was taken on 29-8-1987 and the prosecution vi/as launched against him on 9-10-1987. After a long and protracted trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by order dated November 7, 1992 which has been confirmed by the appellate Court by order dated November 17, 1995. In other words. the petitioner has been undergoing the turmoil of a criminal prosecution for the last about eight years. 9. Now, it is well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights are not a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These are meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial Is also in public interest or that It serves the social interest also, does not make it anv-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inguirv trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how the Courts shall understand this right and have gone to the extent of gnashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed bv the statute vet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof gua the 19. 10 1996 CRl.LJ.2720 fT--"' 9 Dr.YtR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Haripapda Das v. State of West Bengal in para No.6 held as under: 11 20. “6. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the Food Inspector, no impurity or objects injurious to health could be detected but it was found that the saponification value exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit and the B.R. reading also exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the aPDellant was released on bail bv this Court long back and because of the protracted litigation up to this Court he has also suffered a lot of mental aoonv and also financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks, we feel that in the facts of the case the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. We. however, direct that besides the fine imposed bv the Courts below, the appellant will have to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks from today, in default he will have to undergo imprisonment for three months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged. ” 21. In the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhapur in Swaroopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan in CRL.R.P.No.115 of 2007 dated 05.02.2025 at page No.9 it is held as under: “9. This Court finds that the petitioner was a milk vendor and there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the report of the Public Analyst, wherein the sample of milk drawn from the petitioner was found to be Adulterated. However, in the opinion of this Court, since the Incident relates to the year 1997 and the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 27 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded to him bv the learned trial Court for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of 11 AIR 1999 see 1482 IG Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 ■it*- ■-ff ■i0 Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period already undergone bv him. ” The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HussainaraKhatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of 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^^ The petitioner is a female aged now about 58 years. The petitioner was in incarceration for a period of 13 days. She has been suffering from ill health due to post-covid complications to her lungs. 19. 12 Bihar . 20. For the above reasons, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Braham Dass and Haripapda Das supra that in appropriate cases even though minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, this Court at this revisional stage, can pass sentence proportionate to the gravity of the Thus in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal revision case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of ‘the Act.,’ sentencing the petitioner to suffer imprisonment to which petitioner had already undergone, while imposing additional amount towards fine for Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner excluding the fine amount paid by petitioner pursuant to the judgment of the learned Appellate and Trial Courts. The petitioner shall pay the additional fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) within two months from the date of the receipt case. 21. an 21. 12 Air 1979 SC 1360 2000 (1) BUR 37 13 11 % Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l702 of 2009 Dated 10.04.2025 H of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate of Bhimavaram, 21. West Godavari District shall take necessary follow up steps, and report compliance to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. / Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT^^^FRCER To, 1. The III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram (with records) 2. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram (with records) 3. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5. The Station House Officer, Jagampeta Police Station, East Godavari District. 6. One CC to Sri. K L N Swamy Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 9. Three CD Copies PR sree HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1702 of 2009 DISPOSING THE CRL.R.C.