LAWS(APH)-1997-11-57

KAKI SREERAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On November 10, 1997
KAKI SREERAMULU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C.No. 30 of 1992 dated 11-5-1994 whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and also for offence under Section 14(2) r/w 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act for which the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 22-1-1992, Sub-Inspector (Excise),Gajuwaka (PW-3) along with his staff went to Mandal Revenue Officer and gave him a requisition to send two persons as mediators. It is alleged that while they were conducting route watch of Rajiv Centre, Vuda quarters, Peda Gantyada, the accused on being PW-3 and his staff tried to turn back his scooter. But his scooter suddenly stopped and, therefore, he left the scooter and ran away. On searching the scooter a polythene bag was found on the foot rest and in the said bag 200 arrack packets and 2 kgs. ganja was found PW-3 affixed Ex.P-1 search notice on the scooter before conducting the search of the scooter and at the instance of PW-3. PW-1 prepared mediators report-Ex.P-2. The same was signed by PW-1 and PW-3 and one more mediator. PW-1 also prepared rough sketch of the site where the scooter was left by the offender. The sample packets of arrack and ganja were sent for chemical examination under the cover of the letter-Ex.P-7. The chemical analyst opined that MO-6 sample packets were those of ganja and MOs. 7 to 16 were those of arrack. PW-3 filed charge-sheet against the appellant and one D.Sita Rama Raju (Accused No. 2)

(3.) Two questions mainly arise for our consideration in this appeal which in my opinion could decide the fate of the appeal. Firstly, whether there was proper identification of the accused against whom the trial was proceeded with and secondly whether there was any procedural lacuna which could prevent the finding of guilt to be recorded against the accused.