YEDURU SREENIVASUL REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was prosecuted for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity the Act) in CC No. 442 of 1996 before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Cuddapah, on the allegation that on 19-9-1993 at about 10.00 p.m. on suspicion, the Excise Inspector, Proddatur, along with his staff and Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur II Town intercepted the jeep of the petitioner bearing No. TCK1728 coming from Jinnah Road to wards Mydukur and on verification found 18 card board boxes containing different varieties of liquor, which was non-duty paid and the petitioner failed to produce either permit or licence for transporting the contraband. Therefore, they arrested the petitioner, seized the property under cover Special Report, drawn samples from each variety and send it to the Chemical Examiner. The Analysis Report revealed that the samples are beer and Indian Liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for transporting non-duty paid liquor.

(2.) To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and MOs 1 to 6. The Trial Court has considered the fact that on interception by the police officers, the petitioner was found in possession of contraband, that the incident took place in a busy road surrounded by cinema theatre and other business establishment and that nobody came forward to act as panch witness - mediators and that the residence of the V.A.O. is situated one kilometer away from that place and therefore, Special Report was drafted and having regard to the analysis report, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

(3.) Aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1997 before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, who by his judgment dated 17-3-1999, which is impugned in this Revision, dismissed the appeal confirming in toto the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.