Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 379
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Bikkasani Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-24-95
A person accused of committing an offence is entitled to the benefit of an amendment to the law that reduces the penalty, even if the offence was committed before the amendment came into force.
Headnote:
A. P. EXCISE ACT - SECTION 34 (A) AND (B) - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - HOSTILE WITNESSES - SENTENCE - REDUCTION - ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BENEFIT OF AMENDING ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 34 (a) and (b) of the A. P. Excise Act for possession of ganja. The conviction was based on the evidence of excise officials, as the panchayatdars who were mediators turned hostile. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that no independent evidence was adduced and that the sentence of two years imprisonment was excessive in light of an amendment to the Act that reduced the minimum mandatory sentence to six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction was supported by the evidence of the excise officials and that the sentence of two years imprisonment was excessive in light of the amendment to the Act. The court reduced the sentence to six months imprisonment and maintained the fine of Rs. 5,000.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction was sustainable in light of the hostile witnesses. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the Act that reduced the minimum mandatory sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the conviction was sustainable based on the evidence of the excise officials, even though the panchayatdars turned hostile. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the Act that reduced the minimum mandatory sentence, as it did not violate the fundamental right under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition to the extent of reducing the sentence of imprisonment to six months and maintaining the fine of Rs. 5,000.
( 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.
( 4 ) ARTICLE 20 (1) of the Constitution of India says that no person shall be convicted for any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Article 20 are not relevant for this case. Because of the said constitutional protection, the persons accused of committing offences cannot be inflicted with greater penalty than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. At the time of commission of the offence in question, the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 was having force and penalties under Section 34 (a) and (b) was a minimum of two years imprisonment and a maximum of five years imprisonment and a fine up to Rs. 5,000. 00. In the instant case, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is two years R. I. and imposition of fine of Rs. 500. 00. By the amending Act 10 of 1989, the mandatory minimum sentence was reduced from two years to six months with effect from 16-9-1988 while the mandatory minimum fine is made Rs. 5,000. 00. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the date of offence was 20-2-1988 and even though t
