Meruva Satyanarayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

The petitioner has been convicted u/s 36(a)(b) & (c) of A.P. Excise Act 68 read with rules 19, 54 and 55 of A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the substantial evidence on record in support of the conviction, has rightly refrained himself from arguing on merits, knowing the nature of the jurisdiction of this Court in Criminal Revision u/s 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the probation of Offenders Act 58, in view of the fact that the offence is of highly technical nature.

It is true that the allegation against the petitioner was only that he neglected to give intimation of the arrival of the consignments to the Excise Authorities. Except this allegation, there are no other allegations against the petitioner. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence, is of a technical nature and does not involve any moral turpitude. He cited a decision in the case of Public Prosecutor v. P. Chandrasekhar Reddy 1972 (2) APLJ 45 (SN) in support of his contention that for the offence under the Excise Act, the provisions of probation of Offenders Act can also be made applicable. He relied on the decision in the case of Roshanali Burhanali Syed Vs. State of Gujarat, and Joginder Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1981 NOC 21 (PUNJ. & HAR) FB, for the proposition that the Probation of Offenders Act can be applied to person of above the age of 21 years also. He further cited a decision in the case of In re Oli, Petitioner, 1976 Crl LJ 1339, for the purpose that the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act can be applied and the accused can be released u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, in the case where it was found that the accused was the only bread winner in his family.

As per Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, it is necessary to ascertain whether the offender is of a good character and whether it is expedient to release him on Probation of Offenders Act for his good conduct. When it has been argued before the trial Court that the petitioners should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned Magistrate refused to do so on the mere ground that he crossed the age of 30 and and hence the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. The view of the learned Magistrate is clearly erroneous. The above decision make it clear that a person who crossed the age of 21 years, even though the offence under which the offender was convicted prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment, can be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, provided the possesses good character.

In this case, I am not having any material or record to come to an opinion regarding the conduct and character of the petitioner though I am inclined to release him on Probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in view of the fact that the offence is of highly technical nature.

I, therefore, remand the Criminal revision case to the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, directing him to restore Crl. Appeal No. 66 of 1990 and to consider the case of the petitioner for releasing him on probation u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

With this direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The appeal has to be disposed of by the trial Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two moths from the date of receipt of the record.

Order accordingly.