IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove possession of liquor beyond all reasonable doubt and the need for the evidence to pass the test of truth without inconsistencies or discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.20 of 2006 dtd. 17/10/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Principal Assistant Sessions Judge), Rajahmundry, (in short, trial Court) confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2006 dtd. 25/6/2009 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada (in short, appellate Court).

2. The gravamen of the charge against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 is for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(b) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act (in short 'A.P.P. Act'), 1995, and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each. The Revision Petitioners herein were the accused and respondent herein was the complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that,

a. On 13/3/2001, PW.1 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada along with his staff conducted a raid at about 11.40 A.M. near Eluru canal bund and found the Accused Nos.1 to 3 carrying black plastic cans containing 5 litres of I.D. liquor in each can. On enquiry, the accused confessed the address particulars, where the police officials found 16 plastic drums with about 1500 litres of F.J. Wash. The Sub-Inspector of Police could not secure mediators and seized the I.D. liquor cans and F.J. Wash. He drew samples of about 100 ml each from the I.D. liquor cans and 650 ml of F.J. wash from the entire 1500 litres F.J. Wash and the balance F.J. Wash was destroyed by the police officials. They seized the stock under a special report.

b. Basing on the said report vide Ex.P1, PW.3 - Sub-Inspector of Police registered the crime vide Ex.P2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(e) r/w.7(A) of A.P.P. Act. PW.3 laid charge sheet against the accused after receiving the analysis report, vide Exs.P4 and P5. To substantiate their case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and MOs.1 to 4 were placed before the trial Court. The defence is of total denial.

4. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, after hearing both the learned counsel, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(b) of A.P.P. Act and sentenced them as referred supra. Though the accused preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial Court, appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments, A1 to A3 brought the matters before this Court in revision saying that, though the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec. 8(b) of A.P.P. Act, learned trial Judge convicted the accused basing on the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 3 though there are discrepancies in the evidence relating to the factum of the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused and that the learned Judge ignoring such glaring discrepancies erroneously convicted the accused.

6. Heard Sri P.Chethan, Advocate representing on behalf of Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point that would emerge for determination in this revision is,

Whether the Courts below exercised the jurisdiction erroneously or failed to exercise the jurisdiction? If so, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 is erroneous or any interference is warranted in the revision ?

Determination by the Court

9. This Court while sitting in a revision cannot appreciate the evidence and interfere in the concurrent judgments of the trial Court