PODDUTURI SATYAM REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. He was found possessing 15 bottles of Deshidaru, each containing 180 ml. P.W. 2 seized the bottles from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators. Subsequently he gave report, took up investigation and filed charge-sheet. P.W. 1 is the mediator, who turned hostile. Other list witnesses were not examined. Now the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W. 2, who is the complainant and the Investigating Officer. Both the Courts below believed the evidence of P.W. 2 and found the accused guilty for the said offence.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that P.W. 2 being the complainant, cannot undertake the investigation. In this case this is done. Therefore, there is procedural irregularity and the benefit of doubt of this irregular procedure should be given to the accused.

(3.) In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan. In that case it was held that the investigation by the Head Constable who was himself the person, to whom bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the F.I.R. as informant or complainant was an infirmity which was bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.