Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 450 (AP)

G. Bhaskar Reddy v. State of A. P.

2006-03-29

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
ORDER Heard Sri Praveen kumar, Counsel representing the petitioner/A-4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that even if the language of Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act 1968 and also Rule 3 of A.P. Rectified Spirit Rules 1971 are to be taken into consideration, as far as the petitioner/A-4 is concerned, he has nothing to do with any of those offences for the reason that except making an allegation that the petitioner is the owner of the Tata Sumo in which the Rectified Spirit was transported, there is no other allegation in relation to the petitioner/A-4. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the allegation made in the charge sheet in detail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that this is a matter which may have to be gone into at the stage of trial for the reason that the vehicle of the petitioner/A-4 alone had been used for the transport and hence prima facie Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is attracted. 4. The petitioner is Accused No.4 in C.C.No.348/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Zaheerabad filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and four others under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w. Rule 3 of the A.P. Rectified Spirit Rules 1971. Section 34 of the Act aforesaid deals with Penalties for illegal imports etc., and Section 34(a) specifies: "Whoever in contravention of the Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished: ..........". Rule 3 of the A.P. Rectified Spirit Rules 1971 reads as hereunder: "No person shall possess, use, transport, import or export rectified spirit except under and in accordance with these rules and conditions of a licence or permit granted under these rules." 5. The allegations made in the charge sheet are as hereunder: On reliable information regarding illegal transportation of Rectified Spirit in Tata Sumo from Khaton village to Badvel and Cheryal, L.Ws.3 to 5 along with their staff conducted the route watch having secured the presence of mediators L.Ws.1 and 2. The allegations made in the charge sheet are as hereunder: On reliable information regarding illegal transportation of Rectified Spirit in Tata Sumo from Khaton village to Badvel and Cheryal, L.Ws.3 to 5 along with their staff conducted the route watch having secured the presence of mediators L.Ws.1 and 2. On 15-06-2001 at about 2 A.M. they noticed a white colour Tata Sumo coming towards Zaheerabad town. They stopped the vehicle and noticed that A-1 to A-3 were present in the vehicle. They found 12 plastic cans kept under the rear side seats and 8 cans kept under the middle seat each containing 35 Litres of Rectified Spirit. Accused 1 to 3 failed to produce any valid licence or permit for the possession or transportation of Rectified Spirit. It is alleged that A-2 and A-3 had engaged the Tata Sumo belonging to A-4 and A-1 was its driver. It is further alleged that A-2 and A-3 purchased 700 Litres of Rectified Spirit from A-5 and filled up that sprit in 20 cans. 6. It is no doubt true that on a careful reading of the charge sheet, the only allegation against the petitioner/A-4 is that he is the owner of the Tata Sumo in which the Rectified Spirit was transported. It is also no doubt true that there is no allegation that A-1 had taken the vehicle with the permission of the owner or the same was done with the knowledge of the owner. It is no doubt true that under Section 34(a) of the Act aforesaid, the word or expression "transports" also had been incorporated. When no specific allegation as such was made as against the owner so as to attract the provisions of the Act, Section 34(a) of the Act referred to supra and Rule 3 of the Rules referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet filed as against the petitioner/A-4 just on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle may not be sustainable. In the light of the same, the proceedings so far as the petitioner/A-4 are concerned, are hereby quashed. 7. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.