Chidere Raju, Mahabubnagar Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2948 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.8828 OF 2014
ORDER:

1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to

quash the proceedings in P.C.O.R.No.844 of 2012-13 on the file of the

Kothakota Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahaboobnagar, registered for

the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 7 (A)

r/w 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

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 27.01.2013 on

reliable information, the Excise police of Kothakota, intercepted one Bolero

Truck bearing Reg.No.AP 22 Y 5111 and found 40 kgs of black jaggery

each containing 50 kgs and 10 liters of I.D.Liquor and 400 liters of

F.J.Wash. Under the cover of panchanama the police seized the vehicle

along with the stocks and registered a case in P.C.O.R.No.844/2012-13 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

Department and that 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 A.1 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.

7 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.

8 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. So also the

punishment under Section 7 r/w Section 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition & Excise

Act, 1995, is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year

but which may extend up to five 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

either of the sections 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.

9 Further, in the instant case the petitioner is suspected of providing

black jaggery and alum for the purpose of preparing ID liquor. Apart from

the black jaggery the police also seized 10 liters of I.D.Liquor and 400 liters

of F.J.Wash. In the said circumstances, when the case is under

investigation, the Court cannot decide on the fact whether the petitioner

had knowledge about such preparation of ID liquor and during the course

of investigation only all these facts would come to light.

10 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.

11 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.

12 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall

also stand dismissed.

------------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 06.10.2023 Kvsn