Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 221 (AP)

K. VENKATA RAMA RAJU v. STATE OF A. P.

2004-02-23

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
JUDGEMENT 1. On a letter written by the Inspector of Police, Anit-Corruption Bureau, to the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Kovvuru, West Godavari District in forming that during his search of the house of the petitioner, two one litre bottles of Chivas Regal Premium Scotch Whisky and four 375 ml. Peter Scott Malt Whisky bottles were found and were seized, the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Kakinada, registered a case in Crime No. 463 of 2003-04 under S. 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner. This petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Government in exercise of its power under S. 14(1) of the Act, issued G.O.Ms. No. 268 Revenue (Ex. III) dated 1-4-1997 prescribing the quantity of liquor a person can possess without licence, permits a person to be in possession six 750 ml bottles of Foreign or Indian Liquor without license, petitioner being in possession of 2,000 ml of Scotch and 1500 ml Indian Whisky would not be an offence under S. 34(a) of the Act, and so the F.I.R. against the petitioner as per the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 is liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. As per G.O.Ms. No. 268 Revenue (Ex. III) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a person can be in possession of six (6) bottles of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor of 750 ml. each without any permission. 4. As per the report of the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, petitioner was in possession of only two one litre bottles of Scotch Whisky and four 375 ml bottles of Indian made foreign liquor the total of which is well within the limit prescribed by G.O.Ms. No. 628, dated 1-4-1997. Therefore, even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, no offence under S. 34(a) of Excise Act, is made out against the complainant. Therefore, registering a case for an offence under S. 34(a) of Excise Act, against the petitioner for his being in possession of the above said bottles is unwarranted. So the FIR, in view of the ratio in Bhajanlal case (1 supra) can be quashed. 5. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Cr. Therefore, registering a case for an offence under S. 34(a) of Excise Act, against the petitioner for his being in possession of the above said bottles is unwarranted. So the FIR, in view of the ratio in Bhajanlal case (1 supra) can be quashed. 5. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Cr. No. 463 of 2003- 04 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Kakinada registered against the petitioner is quashed. The seized bottler shall be returned to the petitioner. Petition allowed.