Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Uram Surendra – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by its PP Hyd. – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), by the petitioner herein, who was the accused No.1 in C.C. No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta (for short, "the trial Court") and who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2006, on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram (for short, "the learned Additional Sessions Judge"), challenging the judgment therein, dated 28.12.2007, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court in C.C. No.62 of 2004, dated 24.07.2006.
2. The petitioner herein faced charge under Section 7-A R/w. 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short, "the APP Act") before the Court below for which he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. Felt aggrieved of the same, he filed Crimi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory obligation of officials to assist in prohibition or police activities under Sec. 28 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.
Delay in evidence presentation undermines prosecution credibility.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroboration from witnesses in criminal cases and the right of the accused to present evidence in their defense.
1. An appellate court cannot convict an accused of an offense for which they were not convicted by the trial court, unless the accused has appealed against the acquittal.
2. The evidence of a panc....
The prosecution has the duty to establish the safe custody of seized items and the importance of credible evidence in proving the possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide satisfactory explanation and proper documentation regarding the custody and production of seized ite....
The prosecution's failure to produce key evidence, including case property and corroborating witness testimonies, justified the appellate court's acquittal of the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
