BIKKASANI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case arises out of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1991 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed against the petitioner herein by the Court of Additional First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem in C.C. No. 427 of 1989.

(2.) The petitioner is the sole accused. He was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 34(a) and (b) of the A.P. Excise Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction recorded by the Court of Magistrate which was confirmed by the Court of Sessions is unsustainable for the reason that no independent evidence has been adduced and that the panchayatdars P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. The conviction was based on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are the Sub-Inspector of Excise and Circle Inspector of Excise. Ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner on 20-2-1988. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the mediators. P.W. 1 is the Talari of the village and P.W. 2 is the Village Assistant of Burgampahad. They became hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. But merely because they (P.Ws. 1 and 2) turned hostile, that does not mean that the case of the prosecution has to be thrown out. The only restraint was that the evidence of the excise officials i.e. P.Ws. 3 and 4 had to be cautiously scrutinized. Such caution scrutiny having been made both by the Court of Magistrate and the Court of Sessions and the same having been based on cogent material and proper appreciation of evidence, it is impermissible to reappreciate the same in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I affirm the finding of conviction recorded by the Court of Magistrate and confirmed by the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the accused is unsustainable for the reason that under the unamended Act even though two years is the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment to be imposed, but in view of the amendment Act which came into force on 16-9-1988, the minimum mandatory sentence can only be six months. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that inasmuch as the offence took place on 20-2-1988, the benefit conferred by the amending Act 10 of 1989 as regards the imposition of minimum sentence of six months which came into force later on 16-9-1988, cannot be availed of and that two years imprisonment which was prescribed under the unamended Act as on 20-2-1988 was rightly imposed and the same is not liable to be interfered with.