LAXMAN GOUD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, by his judgment dated 27-10-1994 in CC No.61 of 1994 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act (for brevity 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and further sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, by his judgment dated

(2.) 5.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 1994 with the modification of the sentence by reducing it from one year to six months under Section 34(h) of the Act and the fine from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.100/-. 2. The case of the prosecution was that PW3-Assistant Excise Superintendent (Enforcement), Mahabubnagar along with PW4-Excise Sub-Inspector and Constables proceeded to Konkal village on 2-2-1994 and in the meanwhile they picked up panchas-PWs.1 and 2 and visited the house bearing Door No.2/101 at 3.30 p.m. and they found A1 at the house. After having disclosed their identity and after recording the reasons for not obtaining the search warrant, they proceeded to conduct search of the house and in the process they found 28 arrack packets kept in a bag in the eastern comer of the house. Each sachet contains 100 ml. of liquor with the label Ballery District of Karnataka State. Having found that A1 was not having requisite licence to possess them, they seized the sachets after drawing samples therefrom under the cover of Ex.P6- panchanama and arrested the accused. Thereupon, the samples and the accused were handed over to PW5-Sub-Inspector of the concerned Excise Station. PW5 registered the crime on Ex.P6 as Crime No.25/93-94 of Santhinagar Range and sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report. After having received Ex.P7-Chemical Examiner's report, PW5 laid the charge-sheet against A1 and another.

(3.) At the time of trial, on behalf of the prosecution in all five witnesses were examined and Exs.Pl to P7 and MOs.I to III were got marked. One witness was examined on the side of the accused and Exs.Dl and D2 were got marked. Considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of me offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act. In the appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellate Court while concurring with the finding of guilt, modified the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 34(h) of the Act and further modified the sentence by reducing it from one year to six months and the fine from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.100/-. In this revision case, the revision petitioner seeks to assail the same as aforesaid.