The court confirmed the conviction under the A.P. Excise Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and procedural adherence in the criminal justice process.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2008 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment dated 11.06.2007 in C.C.No.1011 of 2006 passed by the learned Special Judicial I Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), finding the revisionists guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and convicted the revisionists under Section 248 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri U. Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution filed to conduct any test identification parade to identify the accused by P.Ws.2 and 3; the learned Appellate Court ought to have seen that according to P.W.5, who was the Spl. M.R.I., MRO Office, Visakhapatnam Urban, testified that on 27.02.2006 the Excise Police destroyed the contraband in his presence under Panchanama report under Ex.P7, he did not say anything about the accused; the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 did not disclose any incriminating material against the accused; the prosecution did not follow the procedure established under law in the alleged arrest and the seizure of the contraband.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioners were in incarceration for more than 15 days. The petitioners’ right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision case as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed and urged to impose the sentence of imprisonment to which they had already undergone, while volunteering that an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each may additionally be imposed as a measure of penance and urged thus to dispose of the revision case in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.62 of 2007 dated 14.07.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Si