The vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3632 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                     MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.5260 of 2021

                                   PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                              Office
        DATE                                ORDER
No                                                                               Note

1.    20.09.2021   CMR, J

                                        I.A.No.1 of 2021

                         Dispensed with for the present.

                                                                    ________
                                                                     CMR, J

                                     Crl.P.No.5260 of 2021


                         Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice
                   for respondent/State and requests time to obtain

instructions.

Post the matter after four (4) weeks.

________ CMR, J

I.A.No.2 of 2021

The petitioner mainly challenges the validity of the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act. He is fortified with judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.L.Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 2 SCC P115, wherein it is held that search conducted by an officer without prior recording of the grounds for his belief that an offence under the Act was likely or being committed is illegal and without effect and conviction based on such illegal search is liable to be set aside. He would also rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 251 (A.P.) in the case of Y.Sreenivasul Reddy Vs. State of A.P. on the same proposition of law.

Based on the aforesaid judgments, this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Criminal Petition No.1640 of 2021 held that in view of the said legal position, the matter requires examination in the main Criminal Petition whether launching of prosecution against the petitioner in the said case amounts to abuse of process of Court or not. So, having held that prima facie case is made out warranting interference of this Court to examine the validity of criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner therein in the main Criminal Petition, this Court ordered for stay of further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R in the said case. Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the petitioner, who is similarly placed, is also entitled to the similar relief.

In view of the above, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R in Crime No.128 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau SEB Station, Eluru, West Godavari District, till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J AKN