ORDER :

1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [the Cr.P.C.] challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narasaraopet [the Appellate Court] confirming the judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed in C.C.No.236 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala [the Trial Court] whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 [the A.P.P. Act] and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

2. Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that even though necessary ingredients of offence under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of ‘the A.P.P. Act’ are not made out, the Petitioner was convicted; evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution is inconsistent and not corroborating; the case was foisted implicating the Petitioner for statistical purposes; the seized contraband is a planted one; independent witnesses were not deliberately examined and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

3. It is further argued that, in this case a disturbing feature is there that the officer who participated in the ride conducted investigation, he had got vested interest in the matter and falsely implicated the Accused No.2 in this case. Hence, it is urged to set aside the judgment of the learned Appellate Court as the person who registered the FIR and conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet is one and the same.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 25 years; nearly 19 years have passed by; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 44 years; he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and requested to impose sentence which he had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of additional fine of Rs.10,000/- may be put as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:

5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 who had spoken in clear terms that the Petitioner was indulged in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7A read with Section 8(e) of ‘the A.P.P. Act’. There was no need or necessity for the investigating officer to falsely implicate the Petitioner in this case. The Petitioner was found red handed with the contraband. Therefore, a case was booked and after thorough investigation charge sheet was laid. The witnesses of the prosecution have thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the revision case, as re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible at this revisional stage.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

7. Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the order in Crl.A.No.134 of 2008 dated 20.11.2008, passed by the Appellate Court, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities?

ii. And to what relief?

ANALYSIS:

8. Indeed, this Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution on any score let alone the interestedness or corroboration of the witnesses. Be that as it may, P.W.3/Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Piduguralla had conducted the raid, he detected the Petitioner, who was i