LAWS(APH)-2004-3-139

RAMISETTY VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE

Decided On March 31, 2004
RAMISETTY VENKATESWARA RAO Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 18.4.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 1997 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the conviction recorded under Section 7 read with 8(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and sentence imposed against the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of forty days by the Trial Court i.e., Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), Guntur in C.C. No.12 of 1996, dated 30.6.1997 was confirmed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 30.3.1995, P.W.2 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise, Tenali along with P.W.3 the constable of the department and other staff found the accused near R.T.C. bus stand, Tenali loitering in suspicious circumstances. The accused was apprehended. The attempt made to secure independent mediator was not successful. The accused was subjected to search by P.W.2 with the help of other excise officials and found four brandy bottles of 750 ml., each. They also found brandy bottles 350 ml., in possession of the accused and all the bottles contained the seals of 'Mc.Dowell Company' which manufactures the contents of the bottles. The bottles, which are M.Os.2 to 6, showed that they were for sale in Tamil Nadu. P.W.2 took one of the bottles 750 ml., i.e., M.O.5 as a sample. He also drew M.O.6 as a sample. Identification slips were pasted and the accused was arrested under a cover of special report under Ex.P.2. M.O.1 Zip bag in which M.Os.2 to 6 were found being carried by the accused. Therefore, a charge under Section 7 read with 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was made.

(3.) The complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P. 5 and M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of the defence, none was examined and no documents were marked.