- (1.) EACH of these appeals have been filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of both the accused concerned in the lower appellate Court. There are two accused in each of these cases. The first accused is Abdul Hameed Khan, He was the Central Excise Inspector alias Range Officer in charge of Puttur Range with head-quarters at Puttur during the relevant period i. e. , 1951-52. The second accused in each of these cases is a tobacco merchant residing at Kuchivaripally about two miles from the town of Rajampet, Cuddapah District and held a wholesale licence which is called L-2 licence. The following tabular statement gives the details: Appeal No. in the C. C. No. in the trial Appeal in the lower Name of the 2nd High Court Court. appellate Court. accused. Crl. Appeal No. C. C. No. 213/1957. Cr. A. Nos. 13 and 14 of A. Pitchayya. T. 509/1958. Crl. A. C. C. No. 214/57. 1958. Crl. A. Nos. 15 and Pitehayya. K. No. 510/58. Crl. A. CO. No. 215/57. C. 16/58. Crl. A. Nos. 17 and Vemayya. K. V. 511/58. Crl. A. C. No. 216/57. C. C. 23/58. Crl. A. Nos. 18 and Subbayya. D. 512/58. Crl. A. No. 217/57. 19/58. Crl. A. Nos. 20 and Pallayya. 513/58. 21/58. The police charge-sheet was filed in each of the cases by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Hyderabad Branch, charging the accused with various offences before the District Magistrate, Chittoor. These cases ultimately came to be tried by the Judl. Special First Class Magistrate, Chittoor. He framed three charges against the accused in each of the cases. He convicted and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. Each of the accused filed an appeal against his convictions and sentences in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chitoor. The latter allowed each of the appeals in full and set aside the convictions and sentences on each charge and completely acquitted each of the accused in each appeal. The Public Prosecutor has thereupon filed these appeals against the acquittal.
(2.) THE charges in all the cases are similar. The nature of the evidence is also similar, The evidence, especially the official evidence which proves the background of the alleged offences including the law and rules as well as official routine and practice is substantially similar in all the cases. But, there is some difference as between the various cases regarding the details of facts. Also, the offences in each case relate to certain permits concerned in that particular case. Several of the witnesses, especially the Excise Officers, who spoke to the law and rules, the procedure which has to be followed according to law and the procedure which was in fact followed as well as the investigation done into the various offences, are the same. But, in view of the fact that the permits are different and relate to different persons in each case, there are some witnesses deposing in that case alone without deposing in the other cases. All the appeals were heard together by common consent. This common judgment is also written by common consent,
(3.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 509 of 1958 has ultimately arisen out of the trial in C. C. No. 213/j 1957. That C, C. contains evidence in a most elaborate form. Most of the documents, which have been marked in all the other cases, have been marked in C. C. No. 213 of 1957 also. For purposes of convenience, the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the Advocates for the accused in all the appeals were concentrated and centred on Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1958 as the main appeal, in dealing with the features common to all the appeals. In addition, the special features in evidence in the other appeals were individually dealt with by them. Accordingly, for purposes of convenience, I am dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1958 in the first instance as representative of all the appeals. In the later portion of the judgment, I deal with the various other appeals briefly one by one with reference to the features in evidence and law special to them. The findings and conclusions in each appeal are based on the evidence relating to the appeal.;