ORDER :

1. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Spl. Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent/ State.

2. This revision has been filed by the petitioner/convict challenging the judgment and order, dated 04.09.2006, passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2006, by which the petitioner’s appeal, filed against the judgment and order, dated 19.01.2006 in C.C. No. 367 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu was dismissed.

3. The prosecution case is that on 04.07.1999 at about 8 p.m. while the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Prathipadu along with his staff was patrolling the suspected places at Lingamparthy for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences found the accused carrying a black coloured plastic cane in his right hand. On suspicion, the above accused was detained and questioned about the contents of the cane, the accused stated that the cane contained illicit distilled liquor, on examination of the cane 10 liters of I.D. Liquor was found. On further enquiry the accused revealed his identity and stated that he purchased the said liquor from an unknown person and getting the same for retail sale. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector took samples of about 300 ml liquor from the cane separately into a bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed the sample bottle and also the cane with the remaining quantity of liquor with his seal and affixed identity slips duly signed by the accused, seized the contraband property and arrested the accused under the cover of a special report drafted at the scene of offence. LW-1 (G. Ellaiah) forwarded the special report along with the accused and property to the SHO, Prathipady and SHO Prathipadu registered a case as Cr. No. 301/98-99 U/Sec. 8(e) r/w 7(a) of APP Amendment Act, 1997.

4. The petitioner/accused, when brought before the court, pleaded guilty for the offence on his examination under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

5. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu, vide judgment, dated 19.01.2006, convicted the accused on his pleading guilty for the offence under Section 8(e) read with Section 7A of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, as amended in 1997, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

6. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2006 which, the appellate court dismissed, holding that there was no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the revision the challenge is confined to the extent of the punishment of sentence of R.I. for one year and as the conviction was made on the petitioner pleading guilty, the same cannot be challenged. He further submits that a lenient view may be taken considering the age of the accused at the time of the offence and long pendency of the case, so as to reduce the punishment of one year R.I. to already undergone.

8. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Spl. Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State submits that one year R.I. is the minimum sentence that has been imposed on conviction of the accused/petitioner under Section 8(e) read with Section 7A of the Prohibition Act, 1995. The maximum sentence is up to 5 years. The trial court has already taken a lenient view by imposing only the minimum sentence, provided by the statute. The judgment under challenge therefore calls for no interference.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Section 7A of the A.P. Prohibition Act, reads as under:

“7A. Prohibition of production etc. of arrack - The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.”

11. Section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act reads as under:

“8. Punishment for buying, selling, consumption etc. of liq