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.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable under Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in C.C.No.308 of 2006, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2007 dtd. 22/7/2008, wherein the petitioners are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 23/6/2006 on information about illegal transportation of arrack sachets across the border of Karnataka State, the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Yemmiganur, along with police officials and excise staff proceeded to the road leading from Yemmiganur to Malapalli village i.e., near L.L.C. Canal Culvert, and found the accused along with three plastic sacks containing 200 arrack sachets of 100ml each.

3. The Excise Inspector for the purpose of analysis collected samples under Mos. 1 to 3. The remaining sacks were seized under the PanchanaEX.P.1., basing on which, a crime was registered under Ex.P.2-FIR. With the permission of the Court, he disposed off the contraband under Ex.P.6 vide Sec. 13 (2) of the Act after obtaining destruction orders from the Deputy Commissioner of Excise vide Ex.P.5. In the meanwhile, he received the report under Ex.P.4 from the Government Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kurnool, stating that the samples seized were diluted arrack which are unfit for human consumption. Thereafter, the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise filed Charge sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the trial Court. The trial went on. PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. One of the panchayatdars i.e., B. Hanumanna was examined as DW.1. Ex. D.1 is the signature of DW.1 in the panchanama, dtd. 23/6/2006. The material objects i.e., Mos. 1 to 3 were produced before the trial Court.

4. On appreciation of the evidence on record, and having heard the submissions of both the counsel, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences for which they are charged and sentenced them as referred above.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the matter was carried in appeal viz., Crl.A.No.40 of 2007 before the II Additional Sessions Court, Kurnool at Adoni, wherein concurrent view was expressed in all aspects of the matter.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 preferred the present revision on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; that the evidence of DW.1, who is one of the attestor to the panchanama is completely brushed aside without any reason; except the evidence of official witnesses, who are interested, nothing is there against the accused; that the learned Courts placed burden on the accused instead of the prosecution; that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to consider the authorities cited on behalf of the accused and no evidence is made out against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995.

7. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that except the samples under M.O.s. 1 to 3, the police failed to produce the contraband before the Court and except the evidence of the official witnesses, who are interested, nothing is placed on record. He would submit that the evidence of DW.1 was completely ignored without any proper reason and as such, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no hard and fast rule that