Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 592 (AP)

PUSALA VENKATESWARA RAO v. State Of A. P.

2002-04-23

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 4 of 2002 of kodad Police Station. ( 2 ) ON 29-3-2002 at 1-30 hours, when he received information that one lorry was stationed with load of black jaggery at the shop of Chenna Rajaiah, Sub-Inspector of police, Kodad, went to the shop of Rajaiah after securing two Panchas, and saw the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TT/1798 stationed in front of the shop of Rajaiah and found 340 bags of black jaggery in the body of the lorry. On enquiry the Driver and the cleaner and another person revealed their names and admitted their guilt, and so he conducted a Panchanama in the presence of the mediators and seized 340 bags of black jaggery and also the lorry with load documents and trip sheet, and arrested those three persons and registered a case in Crime no. 43 of 2002 under Section 34 (E) of the a. P. Excise Act (for short, the Act ). Alleging that his investigation established that Rajaiah, who is running Kirana and black Jaggery business, is supplying jaggery to needy persons and is earning profits, and that A2 and A3, who are the driver and the Cleaner of the lorry, have loaded the lorry with 340 bags of black jaggery from Praveena Traders at Chithur and proceeded to Kodad on 29-3-2002 for unloading the goods at the shop of A1 with an intention to sell that black jaggery to neighbouring traders for manufacturing ID liquor, Sub-Inspector produced A1 and A2 before the learned magistrate for judicial remand. This petition is filed by the owner of the lorry to quash the seizure of the lorry on the ground that no offence is committed by him under section 34 (E) of the Act. This petition is filed by the owner of the lorry to quash the seizure of the lorry on the ground that no offence is committed by him under section 34 (E) of the Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the averments in the complaint are taken to be true, since petitioner did not commit and offence under Section 34 (E) of the Act, and for the reason the seizure of the lorry is in violation of the instructions of the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in his circular C. R No. 4294/dpe/2001/cs, dated 12-4-2002, issued in pursuance of a judgment of this Court in WP No. 19706 of 2000, the seizure of the lorry is liable to be quashed, because all the relevant documents were available with the Driver and the cleaner of the lorry at the time of unloading the goods, and since there is nothing on record to show that the black jaggery is sold to any of the persons for preparation of illicit liquor. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 5 ) IN the circular referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise clearly instructed all the subordinate Officer not to seize consignments of black jaggery which are covered by way-bills and permits issued by the Agricultural Market committees and where purchase documents clearly indicate the names and addresses of the consignor as well as the consignee, and that they can enquire about the use of the consignment of black jaggery. In this case, the certificate issued by the Sub- inspector of Police shows that the lorry has trip sheet, sale bill, way-bill, RC. DL. Market Committee receipt No. 49818. When black jaggery is being transported with a valid way-bill and permit issued by the agricultural Market Committee, and when the documents clearly indicate the names and addresses of the consignor and the consignee, seizure of the lorry of the petitioner is clearly against the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. If the consignee, after unloading the consignment, is intending to use it for some illicit purpose, owner of the lorry cannot be penalised. If the consignee, after unloading the consignment, is intending to use it for some illicit purpose, owner of the lorry cannot be penalised. Since the transport of the consignment is not for any illicit purpose, seizure of the lorry of the petitioner on the ground that it was being used for an offence under Section 34 (E) of the Act is improper and is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) HENCE, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of seizure of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TT 1798 belonging to the petitioner are quashed and set aside. The lorry with all the documents seized shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith.