THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8757 of 2014
ORDER:
1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.278 of 2013 on the file of SHO, Prohibition and Excise Station, Nampalli, Nalgonda District, registered for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w Sections 3 & 4 of GUR (Regulation of USE Order) 1968.
2 Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3 The accusation against the petitioner is that on 19.07.2013 the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Nampalli, along with the S.I. of Police, Gurrampode Nampalli village and seized the contraband viz., one TATA ACE trolly auto bearing No.AP 24 TA 3471 with 11 bags of black jaggery and two bags of alum each 50 kgs. Under the cover of panchanama the police seized the vehicle along with the stocks and registered a case in 278/2013 dated 29.7.2013 for the offences stated supra.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the purchase and sale of the black jaggery and other kirana items under valid licence issued from the office of the Commercial Tax 2 Department and that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Kirana Jaggery at D.No.13-1, Chanduru village & Mandal, Nalgonda District and maintaining the said shop under valid certificate of registration issued by the Commercial Tax department. The petitioner is purchasing the jaggery and other kirana items from the whole sellers under valid bills and selling the same to the customers on retail price. It is his further submission that the petitioner was implicated in the above case basing on the confession made by the other accused in the case and that the petitioner is nothing to do with the contraband.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the office of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, vide CR.No.4294/DPF/2001/C5, dated 22.12.2001, on the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.1970 of 2000, has instructed the Excise authorities not to cause any undue harassment whatsoever in respect of genuine trade transactions of black jaggery covered by valid permits.
6 It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the excise police did not file the charge sheet till date and hence the case against the petitioner has to be quashed as the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
36 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1252 of 2010, dated 15.07.2010, contended that there is ample of evidence to prove that the property seized in the instant case is meant for preparation of illicit liquor.
7 As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the prosecution did not file charge sheet so far, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, the law is otherwise. The punishment for an offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence. Therefore, the punishment for the section stated above is five years and more. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
8 Further, in the instant case the petitioner is suspected of providing black jaggery and alum for the purpose of preparing ID liquor. In the said circumstances, when the case is under investigation, the Court cannot decide on the fact whether the petitioner had knowledge about such 4 preparation of ID liquor and during the course of investigation only all these facts would come to light.
9 Further, the petitioner is relying upon the Memo of the Commissioner of Excise, dated 22.12.2001. But as seen from the record the petitioner has not filed any single document to show that he purchased the said items under valid bills.
10 For all these reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and accordingly this criminal petition is dismissed.
11 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date:06.10.2023 Kvsn