KAROLLA CHINNAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against judgment dated 27 -08 -2007 in Crl. A. No. 41/2006 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad whereunder judgment dated 12 -07 -2006 in C.C. No. 50/2003 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nizamabad was confirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows: - -

(3.) ADVOCATE for revision petitioners submitted that except the self -serving testimony of P.W. 1, there is no other evidence to prove the allegations against the revision petitioners. He submitted that even according to prosecution, only A1 was found selling toddy and A2 & A3 are charge sheeted as they are licences holders. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that it is convincing and trustworthy. But when his evidence creates some doubt, accepting such evidence without corroboration is not correct. He submitted that both Courts have committed error in convicting the revision petitioners and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.