Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 648 (AP)

A. v. V. Satyanarayana VS Station House Officer

2002-06-04

body2002
( 1 ) THE petitioner is owner of a shop in Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat. He is having wholesale business in jaggery. It appears that he purchased 136 qtls. of of jaggery from Khandelwal Trading Co. , Bazarkot, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh on 28-11-2001 under valid waybills and other sale documents. On 25-2-2002, it is alleged that the respondents inspected the petitioner s shop and demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe threatening that they would otherwise take action under the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968. The petitioner refused to pay the amount. On 26-2-2002 when the petitioner was absent from the shop, the respondents seized 136 bags of black jaggery weighing 6800 kg. and registered a case under Section 34 (e) of the Act as P. R. No. 765/2001-02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar. The petitioner contends that the jaggery was not intended for manufacture of any liquor and it was intended for business in retail and, therefore, the action of the respondents in registering the crime is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. He prays this Court to quash the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE question raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of a Full Bench, to which I was a member, in GANESH TRADERS, DHERMAPURI, KARIMNAGAR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR. The majority of the Full Bench referring to various provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 laid down principles of law as under. ( 2 ) THE question raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of a Full Bench, to which I was a member, in GANESH TRADERS, DHERMAPURI, KARIMNAGAR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR. The majority of the Full Bench referring to various provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 laid down principles of law as under. a) The provisions of the A. P. Excise Act including Sections 13 (f) and 34 (e) should be interpreted with reference to the objects of the Act and penal provisions dealing with excise offences should also receive broader interpretation having regard to the fact that the Excise Act is intended to achieve partially the objective of Article 47 of the Constitution of India;b) Having regard to the provisions of Sections 13, 34 and 53and 55 of the Excise Act, we must hold that if Commissioner, Collector, Police Officer or Excise Officer "has reason to believe" that black jaggery (material) is likely to be used for manufacture of Id liquor the same can be seized and persons can be arrested and subject to facts and circumstances of each case including any report of the chemical examiner a charge sheet can be filed under Section 34 (e) of the Excise Act. c) In a situation such as (a) and (b) above, if the circumstances so warrant the person/accused is entitled to approach under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek quashing of proceedings provided his case come within well settled principles for quashing F. I. R. , charge sheet or criminal case. However, a writ petition in such an event at the stage of investigation is not permissible when there is prima facie material to show that black jaggery is not fit for human consumption and was intended for manufacture of ID liquor, andd) As held by the Supreme Court in NASU SHEIKKS case (supra) if the F. I. R. shows the ingredients of offence under Section 34 (e) read with Section 13 (f) of the Excise Act, a person cannot be heard to say in High Court that he is carrying on business or transporting black jaggery either because he is an agriculturist or businessman. All such pleas are to be raised before appropriate criminal Court. All such pleas are to be raised before appropriate criminal Court. ( 3 ) INSOFAR as the prayer for release of the vehicle involved allegedly for the offence under Sections 13 and 34 of the Excise Act is concerned, the Full Bench after referring to judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (PROHIBITION AND EXCISE) v. SHOBALAL2 and STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KRISHNAN held as under. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, in these proceedings the petitioners cannot be given any relief for release of either black jaggery or vehicles involved. It is open to them to approach criminal Court for release of crime property and in such an event, without being influenced by any contra observations made herein above, any consideration shall be as per law. Following the decision of the Full Bench, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the criminal Court for release of the crime property. No costs.