IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment, dtd. 3/2/2010 in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2007, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru ("Additional Sessions Judge" for short), whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant Nos.1 to 3, confirming the conviction and sentence, dtd. 17/10/2007 imposed against the appellant Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.7 of 2006, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru ("Chief Judicial Magistrate" for short).

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, in C.C.No.7 of 2006, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (originally corresponding to C.C.No.298 of 2005, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru), is that on 19/12/2004 in between 5-00 p.m. and 6-00 p.m., P.W.2 along with his staff and mediators found A.1 to A.3 involved in manufacturing of arrack in violation of A.P. Prohibition Act, without any licence or permit. P.W.2 found A.1 sitting at a live hearth and raising fire in the hearth and A.2 exchanging hot water to cold water on the condenser and A.3 putting all the cans in one place. On seeing P.W.2 and his staff, A.1 to A.3 tried to ran away. P.W.2 with the assistance of his staff apprehended A.1 to A.3 and interrogated them in the presence of panchas, P.W.1 and another person. P.W.2 seized 30 liters of F.J. Wash contained in 50 liters capacity boiler Aluminum vessel and one receiver, one mud pot with two liters of I.D. Liquor and one 20 liters capacity Aluminum vessel with water. Four plastic cans of ten liters capacity total 40 liters of I.D. Liquor, one plastic mug and one 10 liters capacity empty black plastic can under the cover of mediators report. P.W.3 collected four samples each 300 ml. from seized four black plastic cans. P.W.3 also collected 300 ml. of hot F.J. Wash from boiler and 300 ml. from receiver pot. P.W.2 seized sample bottles and 5 cans. P.W.2 destroyed the remaining wash from boiler vessel and other material seized with the permission of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kakinada, under the cover of Ex.P.4- attested copies of orders. P.W.2 forwarded the samples to Laboratory for analysis. The analysis report, Ex.P.3, shows that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor injurious to health and other sample is fermented wash fit for distillation. P.W.2 forwarded the appellants/A.1 to A.3 to the Court for the purpose of remand. On completion of investigation, P.W.2 filed charge sheet against the appellants/A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Sec. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4. Originally, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, took cognizance under Sec. 8(e) r/w 7(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act and after examination of the accused under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), framed a charge under Sec. 8(e) r/w 7(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked. During Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they were implicated falsely. Later, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), West Godavari, Eluru, on considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the charge against the accused, but the accused ought to have received punishment more severe than the Court is empower to impose, as such, submitted the proceedings to