EXCISE FLYING SQUAD HYD Vs. A VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State assailing the order passed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad releasing the respondents on probation of good conduct on their entering into bonds each in a sum of Rs. 5000/-together with two sureties each in a like sum to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peaco and be of good bhavicur. The respondents and another by name Ch. Paparao were prosecuted before the Vl Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad in C C No. 256 of 1981 on his file for certain offences punishable under the ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11 -5-'1931 at about 1. 15 pm the lorry bearing No. AAP 4410 was intercepted by the Inspector of police (Excise Flying Squad) nearT V Tower while the lorry was proceeding towards Vijayawada, that R-1 was driving the lorry, that R-2 sat behind R-1 in the lorry that the lorry was found loaded with 6, 120 bottles of liquor, packed in 102 gunny bags, that the contraband was concealed under a cover of 66 bags of caster cake, that when questioned R-1 and R-2 confessed that R 3 was the owner of the entire load and that R-4 was the owner of the lorry. All the bottles of liquor and the bags of castor cake were seized by the Inspector of Police. Samples of bottles were sent for chemical analysis and the chemical analysis revealed that the bottles contained alcohal, colouring matter and oleossir of zinger, besides diluted rectified spirit. R-3 is the licenced proprietor of M/s. Siris Pharmaceuticals at Salemnager colony Hyderabad. R-1 and R-2 contravened the provisions of Sections 11 and 14 (2) of the A P Excise Act while R-3 contravened the provisions of Sections 13(a) and (e) and 14 (2) of the A P Excise Act, R-4 contravened the provisions of Section 50 of the A P Excise Act.

(3.) During examination under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, R-1 and R-3 i.e' A-1 to A-3 pleaded guilty to the charges framed against them and prayed for clemency. The learned Magistrate while convicting them of the offences with which they stood charged freely extended to them the benefit under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As A-4 denied commission of the offence alleged against him. the case against him was split up.