THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1691 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Impugning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the Revision Petitioner/accused, in Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2002, dated 18.11.2008 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Guntur, the present revision is preferred. 2. Heard Sri Ambati Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on receipt of certain information on 23.08.1997, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.Ws.3 and 4 inspected the house of the accused and found certain drugs, which were intended for supply to Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of A.P., Central Government and other Organizations and were not for sale. Though P.W.1 asked the accused about the source of purchase and asked to produce his licence to stock those drugs, accused did not produce the same. As a result, P.Ws.1 and 2 seized the drugs under cover of panchanama and after completion of due process and obtaining necessary permission from the Drugs 2 Control Authority, Hyderabad to launch prosecution, P.W.1 lodged a complaint against the accused before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 65(18) and 18(a) read with Section 28 of the Act. 4. During trial, to substantiate the case of the Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.26 and M.Os.1 to 20 were marked. The defence is of the total denial. 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii), in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 28 of the Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 65(18) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. 6. Assailing the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2002 before 3 Sessions Judge, Guntur, which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the accused brought the matter before this Court in revision. 7. Leaned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the mediators/P.Ws.3 and 4 were the owners of medical shops, which were under the control of the Drug Inspector. He would submit that the seized drugs do not belong to the accused and they were kept in the house of the accused by some unidentified person. He would submit that there was no proof of sale of drugs by the accused and mere possession of the same would not make the accused guilty of the alleged offence. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment. Since the scope of this Court in Revision is very narrow, the findings of the Trial Court, which were confirmed by the Appellate Court warrant no interference of this Court and prays to dismiss the revision 9. Point for determination is: Whether the impugned order is sustainable in eyes of law or whether it warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction? 4 Determination by the Court: 10. With regard to the revisional jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again cautioned about the limits in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and as to how sparingly it must be used. An appellate Court’s jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the original court in so far as the appreciation and reappreciation of the evidence is considered. While sitting in revision, the Court is primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the findings and on the exercise of jurisdiction. 11. P.W.1, who was the-then Drug Inspector, in his evidence deposed that on receipt of credible information that the accused was dealing with drugs, on 23.08.1997 at about 7.00 p.m., along with P.Ws.2 to 4 visited the house of the accused and found some drugs which were not intended for sale. The drugs were stored in his house without having valid licence. P.W.1 further deposed that, he seized the said drugs in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4, under cover of Ex.P.4 panchanama. When the accused was asked to furnish the source of supply of those drugs, he gave a reply stating that some unidentified person stocked those drugs in his house. P.W.2, who is 5 another Drug Inspector, corroborated the version of P.W.1 on all material aspects 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the stock witnesses and their evidence cannot be looked into. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the residents of Chilakaluripet, deposed that, having been sent for by P.W.1, they came to the house of the accused and in their presence, P.W.1 inspected the house of the accused, found M.Os.1 to 20 drugs and on questioning, the accused had not produced any licence. They also deposed that the accused had failed to disclose the source of supply of those drugs. 13. It is pertinent to mention that the Investigating Officer is expected to involve independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality for conducting search in the house of the accused and for seizure of the drugs, vide the Act. In the present case, since P.Ws.3 and 4 are the residents of Chilakaluripet and are having medical shops, they were involved in the search proceedings. Further, there is no evidence to show that P.Ws.3 and 4 were having enmity with the accused and they have no reason to support the version of P.W.1 and falsely implicate the accused in the case. Furthermore, any 6 motive for P.Ws.1 and 2 to falsely implicate the accused in this case, was not proved. Though P.Ws.3 and 4 are the owners of medical shops, that cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. P.W.1 had scrupulously followed the procedure laid down for searches and seizures. The defence of the accused is that, some unknown person kept the said drugs in his house. Allowing a stranger to keep such a huge quantity of medicines in his house, which were intended for Government use, is improbable. There is no plausible explanation from the accused for stocking those drugs in his house. Without having any right or licence, the accused stocked those medicines, which were intended for Government use. Further, the accused had not disclosed the source of supply of those drugs. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the date of alleged offence, the accused was aged about 38 years and from the last 25 years he has been suffering and as such, sentence may be reduced. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds for clean acquittal of the accused. However, having regard to the age of the accused, this Court is inclined to modify the judgment passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed 7 by the Appellate Court, by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to three months. 16. In result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year to three months for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, and simple imprisonment of one year to three months for the offence under Section 28 of the Act. The period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused shall be surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet, to serve the remaining sentence, if any. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 12.12.2023 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1691 of 2008 Dt.12.12.2023 Dinesh