Gattu Seenaiah, Nalgonda Dt. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd
2023 Latest Caselaw 2963 Tel

             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

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.

6 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

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