IMPORTANT POINT
The court can invoke the Probation of Offenders Act to release an offender on probation considering their age, health, and lack of prior criminal history.

ORDER :

V Srinivas, J.

Assailing the common judgment dated 26.05.2011 in Crl.A.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Anantapur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 13.09.2010 in C.C.No.495 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate) at Anantapur, for the offences under section 18(c) of Drugs Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, Section 18(a), punishable under Section 28 of the Act and Section 22(1)(cca), punishable under Section 22(3) of the Act, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 31.05.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1667 of 2011.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On 24.08.2004 at about 10.40 a.m., P.W.1-Drug Inspector, who is empowered to institute a case under Section 32 of the Act, visited the shop of M/s. Suraj Traders (Shop), 23/9 Gandhi Bazar, Anantapur along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and at that time accused was doing business and that P.W.1 searched the shop and found fourteen types of drugs along with other fancy items stocked in the shop, which appears to have been kept for sale without any license and purchase bills.

ii). Then P.W.1 taken six types of drugs on payment of cash of Rs.710/- under bill No.178/D, dated 24.08.2004 and recorded them in form-16. The remaining quantity of fourteen types of drugs were seized from the shop of accused in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 under the cover of Ex.P.4 panchanama, as he did not produce any purchase bills and did not possess any license. The same was produced before the Court for getting order of safe custody under cover of Exs.P.6 and P.7.

iii). Ex.P.8 notice was issued to the accused by P.W.1 called for certain documents and information as required and the same was acknowledged by him under Ex.P.9. Then, he requested time to submit his explanation under Ex.P.10 reply.

iv). On 28.09.2004, Ex.P.12 reply, dated 27.09.2004 received from accused stating that the seized drugs are not belong to him and that they were mis-sent by transport company. However, he did not produce any proof in support of his version. Hence, the complaint.

4. On perusal, cognizance was taken and numbered as C.C.No.495 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate) at Anantapur, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), 18(a) punishable under Section 28 and 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section 22(3) of the Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of fifteen (15) days and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.137 of 2010, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Anantapur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26.05.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

6. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri Md.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings reco