ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. This appeal pursuant to the leave granted is against an order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. 2. On 4-1-1992 at about 4.00 a.m. mini lorry was intercepted on the highway by the police and it was found that the mini lorry was carrying 90 gunny bags and each bag was containing 50 bottles filled with coloured arrack. The case was investigated and the two charge-sheets were laid. The first was filed on 13-1-1992 and the second one was on 7-7-1992. It is alleged that the lorry belonged to the firm of which A-1 (Saleem) is the managing partner and A-2 and A-3 are the other partners. In the charge-sheet A-4 to A-8 were also included alleging that they transported and A-9 abetted. In the charge-sheet it is mentioned that A-1 and A-3 are liable under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. A-1 and A-3 filed a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings against them. The learned Judge having examined the provisions of Sections 4(1)(a) and 14-A reached the conclusion that Section 14-A would be attracted only after the trial court conclude that the vehicle would be liable to be confiscated and consequently the owner would also be liable as an accused and since that stage has not reached, the question of prosecuting A-1 to A-3 does not arise. In that view of the matter, the proceedings were quashed against A-1 to A-3. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal. At the time of granting special leave, the same was dismissed as against A-2 and A-3 and the leave was granted only as against A-1. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned counsel, submits that the statement of Thirumalai, Manager of the firm owned by A-1 to A-3, discloses that the respondent had been letting out the lorry for transport of Ayurvedic medical preparations on hire basis regularly and at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the respondent and the matter should have been left to the trial court and the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings against the respondent who is the Managing Director of the firm. 4. The learned Judge of the High Court has extracted the complete statement of Thirumalai. 4. The learned Judge of the High Court has extracted the complete statement of Thirumalai. In that statement Thirumalai has stated that A-1 was the Managing Director of the Firm. On 3-1-1992, A-9 met A-1 and wanted to hire the lorry to transport the Ayurvedic medical preparations. On such representation, A-1 had fixed the hire rate and let out the lorry. Thirumalai has also added that the said lorry was utilised on several previous occasions for transporting the medical preparations. The learned Judge of the High Court having examined this statement and the allegations in the charge-sheet felt that at this stage an offence under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 14-A is not made out against the respondent. 5. No doubt as contended by Shri Vaidyanathan, the witness if actually examined in the court, he may come out with more details which are likely to implicate the respondent. We do not want to express any opinion on this aspect at this stage. If some material comes forth before the trial court, as observed by the High Court, and if the trial court is satisfied, it can then invoke Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the respondent can be arrayed as accused. At this stage, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. For the view we have taken above, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the scope of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 6. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.