ESWARAMMA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were convicted under section 34 (a) of A. P. Excise Act and each of them was sentenced to two years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs, 50/- each in default to suffer S.I. for one month.

(2.) P.W. 1 is the mediator and P.W. 2 is the Excise S.I. The evidence of these two witnesses establishes that these two (accused) along with another person (who was also convicted and sentenced but has not preferred any revision) were carrying three mud pots and in each mud pot there was I.D. arrack of three litres. A Panchanama was drafted and the samples of the arrack were also sent to the departmental Chemical Examiner who certified that it was I.D. arrack. The accused denied the offence and suggested that the case was foisted against them at the instance of one Ramakrishna Reddy but there is no reason to dis-believe the evidence of P.W. 1.

(3.) But now coming to the nature of the offence there are certain circumstances which throw a doubt as to whether an offence under Section Crl. RC 163 of 1982, Dated 22-3-1983, 34 (a) is made out. P.W. Fs evidence itself shows that these three people were carrying only small quantities of liquor. The day was Bhogi day and it was obvious that they were taking this to sell to the consumers who wanted to celebrate the Bhogi. It was not the case of the prosecution that they were in possession of large quantities or were indulging in manufacturing as we come across in most of the other cases. P.W. 1 admits that one Ramakrishna Reddy, who is an arrack contractor was also with the Sub- Inspector. The defence version is that this Ramakrishna Reddy got this case foisted against them. Though the defence version cannot be accepted in its entirety the circumstances do indicate that these three persons were taking small quantities for supplying it to the villagers on the Bhogi day. It is no body's case that they themselves have manufactured. Therefore they must have bought it from some body for the sake of their own consumption or for the sake of the villagers who wanted to celebrate the Bhogi Festival. The conduct of the three accused also supports the same inasmuch as they did not even try to run away when they saw the Excise Sub-Inspector.