GHOUSUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.14 (2) read with Sec. 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act and he is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

(2.) The petitioner is said to be occupying a portion in H. No. 3-6-96 Near Chintalbasti. On 3-10-1979 at about 12-30 noon P.W. 2 the Excise inspector (Enforcement). Twin Cities, raided the house of the accused in the presence of P.W.1 and another panch witness. They found a plastic can containing 30 litres of rectified spirit and three green coloured tins and also found prolyt hene bag with 40 kgs. of chloral hydrate and three blue coloured tins containing 20 kgs of chloral hydrate in each and in total 180 kgs. The accused was interrogated. He did not give any explanation. A seizure report, Ex, P.1 was prepared and the accused also signed in the said report. After investigation, a complaint was filed. The prosecution examined the mediator, P.W.1, the Excise Inspector, P.W. 2 and also the Chemical Examiner, P.W. 3. It may be mentioned here that the Chamical Examiner's report shows that what was seized from the house of the accused contains rectified spirit as well as Chloral Hydrate. Both the courts below have believed the evidence and held that the accused was in possession of intoxicants in violation of Sec. 14(2) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him under Sec. 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act.

(3.) Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has not established that the accused was the occupant of the premises which was searched and therefore it cannot be said that he was in exclusive possession of the premises where from this contraband was seized. When examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C the accused totally denied the offence. D.W.1 deposes that he is a resident of the House No. 6-3-96 and the accused is a resident of 6-3-97. His evidence does not inspire confidence. He says that he leaves in the morning and comes only in the evening. D.W 2 also deposes to the same effect which has been rightly disbelieved by both the courts below, D.W. 2 deposes that he is a resident of H. No.6 -3-198 and that there is no person by name M.V. Naidu in the said house. He filed a voters list. I do not think, his evidence is of much help to the accused. However, this is a question of appreciation of evidence and both the courts have held that the accused was residing in the house which was searched. P.W. I, the panch witness deposes that when all of them went to the house arid knocked the door, the accused opened the door and on questioning, the accused agreed for the search and it was the accused only who gave the key of the second room and opened the lock himself and inside they found all these goods. Ex. P. 1 was prepared mentioning all these particulars. There is no reason, whatsoever, to doubt the evidence of this witness. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has to be rejected.