Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Padamata Veeravenkata Satyanarayana … vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 16 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1060 OF 2008
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the
Judgment and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Dt. 14-07-2008 in
CrI.A.No. 62 of 2007 in confirming the orders made by the learned Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam, Dt.11-05-2007
in C.C.No. 1011 of 2006.
Between:
1. Padamata Veeravenkata Satyanarayana @ Peda Babu, S/o
Veerabhdra Rao, Aged 30 years, R/o D.No. 4-99, Burra Veedhi,
Draksharamam, East Godavari District.
2. Vanga Srinivasa, S/o late Ramu, Aged 35 years, Opp: Pragathi College,
Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. Rayudu Govindu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 26 yrs, R/o D.No. 1-57/A,
Jaganadhagiri, Kajuluru Mandal, E.G District.
4. Tekimudi Lakshmana Rao, S/o Subrahmanyam, Aged 30 yrs., R/o Red
Cross Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
...Accused/Petitioner
AND
The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at
Hyderabad.
...Complainant/Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V SAI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following Order:
/
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1060 of 2008
ORDER:
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
T
Dr.YLf\
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 200^
Dated 16.06.2025
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 Ii S
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.
3
JT
/
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 2008
Dated 16.06.2025
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 Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph No. 13 it
is held as under:
“13…. Ijithe absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure
or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the
High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,
[t has repeatedly been held that the Hiah Court should not re-
appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial
Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave
miscarriage of lustice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such
cases is not warranted. ”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph
No.10 held as under:
… It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the
interests of public justice require interference for the correction of
a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of
justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely
because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or
mis-appreciated the evidence on record.”
10:
This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second
Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revisioncase as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, and D
Stephens.
1(2002) 6 see 6S0
lAIR 1951 Se 196
r4
Dr.YLR,
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of200&
Dated 16.06.2025
11.
To prove the guilt of the petitioners the prosecution had examined
P.Ws.1 to 7, got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.No.1. It is the case of the
prosecution that the petitioners were found in possession and transportation of
liquor bottles without valid and permit license from Kakinada to
Visakhapatnam. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 coupled with Exs.P2 to 5 clearly
established the same. As seen from the averments of the Ex.P11 coupled with
the testimony of P.Ws.6 and 7, it is obvious that on 12.10.2005 the excise
officials led by P.W.6 along with P.W.7 while patrolling during Dussehra
festivities, noticed ambassador car bearing No. AP 5Y 5328 coming from R.K
Beach at about 2:15 p.m., on suspicion the vehicle was intercepted and
noticed three gunny bags and A1 to A4 were present in the car. P.W.7
proceeded to secure mediators, but in vain as it was midnight during
Dussehra festivities. Therefore, the riding officials were constrained to draft
special proceedings. It is axiomatic that the petitioners were found in
possession of huge quantity of liquor without valid license, therefore, the
learned Trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section
34(a) of ‘the Act’. The learned Appellate Court also rightly confirmed the
judgment of the learned Trial Court. Hence, the conviction for the offence
under Section 34 (a) of ‘the Act.,’ shall be maintained.
12. Indeed, Section 34 (a) of ‘the Act.,’ mandates that the offenders have to
be punished with an imprisonment not less than one year, but it may extend
up to five years, along with a fine, which is not less than Rs. 10,000/-, but it
may extend up .tp^Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ironically, the learned Trial Court imposed
5
y Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 2008
Dated 16.06.2025
only Rs.5,000/- which is less than the minimum statutory prescription of fine
and also the imposed rigorous imprisonment of six months which is less than
statutory prescription of minimum one year.
13. Be that as it may, in regard to imposition of sentence on the petitioners,
in Santhosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation^ the Hon’ble Apex Court while
referring judgment in N. Sumumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara’^
had commuted the sentence under Clause (d) of Section 433 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’
and imposed Rs. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months
imprisonment.
14. Yet, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Guthula Ramakrishna v.
State of A.P^, while dismissing the criminal revision case held that the
minimum sentence provided by law cannot be reduced further by quoting the
judgments of the Apex Court in State of MP v. Vikram Das® and Meera v.
State of Tamil Nadu^ wherein it is held that merely because long time has
passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is
no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence
already undergone.
15. However, another learned single judge of this Court in Kesuboyina
Kanakayya v. A.P® instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment of one
year, the accused therein was directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
^ 2000 (9) see 151
‘* Air 1995 sew 1983
5 2022 see online AP 156
®(2019) 4 see 125
/2022 see online Se 31
”^■sU(.e.No.2145 of 2009 dated 29.01.2024
6
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of20c\
16.
The Hon’ble Dated 16.06.202S
Supreme Court in SanfftosA supra commuted the
sentence of imprisonment of fine and sentenced the
undergo the i
petitioner therein to
imprisonment which he had already undergone
there was even though
statutory prescription of imposition of mi
imprisonment.
minimum sentence of
17.
Of course, in
i a different context
relating to Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Braham Dass V. State of
Himachal Pradesh^ i
in para-Nos. 5 & 6 held as under:
we find that the
rnknanlv in an mfi- .j- ^ ‘ the .^cnfapce. thn/.^h
tak^, strictthe
undergone anw
18.
Further, the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana ini Des Raj v. State of
Haryana^®, i
in para-Nos.8 & 9 held as under;
8. The respective
IS not disputed thaUhTsamnh^^n carefully. It
1987 and the proseo/to Zt iauttT
\
_^^J^een eonfZdVXeT
“air ^§88 see 1789
^ o^
1996 eR(.L.J.2720
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 2008
Dated 16.06.2025
dated November 17, 1995. In other wordfi, the petitioner has
for the
been undergoing the turmoil of a criminal prosecution
laet about eight years.
9. Mn^A, it /.«? wRil fiettled that the right to speedy and expeditious
trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights are nor
a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These are meant to b e
enforced and made a reality. Fair, iust and reasonabje
procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right
in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the
right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public
interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make
it anv-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy tnaj
flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the
stage of investigation, inguirv trial, appeal, revision and rethaj
This is how the Courts shall understand this right and have
gone to the extent of Quashing the prosecution after such
inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person
in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case ^
all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by la\^
It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed
upon a convict is prescribed by the statute vet keeping in view
the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
interpretation thereof oua the right of an accused to a speedy
trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be
compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes oji
account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by
this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Haripapda Das v. State of West Bengal \
in para No.6 held as under;
“6. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the
appellant under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling
adulterated mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the
Food Inspector, no impurity or objects injurious to health could
value
be detected but it was found that the saponification
exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit and the B.R.
reading also exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering that the appellant was released on bail by thjs
Court long back and because of the protracted litigation up to11 AIR 1999 see 1482
Dr.YLK
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 200,
Dated 16.06.202’s
this Court he has p/cn
financial hardsihif
nireadv undptnmt if the will hf^
appeals
stand discharged. ”
20.
The learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied on the Judgment
Of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhapur in Swaroopa Ram
V. state of
Rajasthan in CRLR.P.No.115
of 2007 dated 05.02.2025 wherein at page
No.9 it is held as under;
and mL™^
and there is no reason available
PBtitioner was a milk vendor
with it to disbelieve the report
undergone by him ” period already
21.
In fact, the right to speedy trial is a fundamentai right as per the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i
in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V. Home
Secretary State of Bihari2. This ri
right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In
addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal
revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v.
Air 1979 SC 1360
r
9
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.1060 of 2008
Dated 16.06.2025
State of Bihar^^. The petitioners were in incarceration for a period of more
than 15 days. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the
petitioners as fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, for the above
reasons, this criminal revision case is disposed of confirming the conviction for
the offence under Section 34 (a) of ‘the Act.,’ and sentencing the petitioners to
suffer imprisonment to which the petitioners had already undergone, while
on the
imposing an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards fine each
petitioners excluding the fine amount paid by petitioners pursuant to the
judgment of the learned Appellate and Trial Courts.
23. The petitioners shall pay the additional fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each within two months from the date of the
receipt of this order before the learned Trial Court, failing which, the
petitioners shall suffer three more months rigorous imprisonment.
24. The learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition &
Excise) Visakhapatnam shall take necessary follow-up steps.
25. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
2000 (1)BLJR37
Sd/- M RAMESH BABU
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition & Excise,
Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam
District.
4. One CC to Sri. V Sai Kumar Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati [OUT]
6. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Three CD Copies
SAM
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/06/2025
\
JUDGMENT
CRLRC.No.1060 of 2008
DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC