Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 501 (AP)

EDIGA THIPPESWAMY v. STATE OF A. P.

2009-07-24

G.BHAVANI PRASAD

body2009
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Kothapalli Ram Mohan chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H. Prabalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the sole respondent. ( 2 ) CRIME No. 31 of 2007of Rayadurg Police station was registered against the petitioners herein alleging possession of toddy without the requisite license, the earlier license having expired on 31-3-2007. When the samples were sent for chemical analysis they were found not to contain any objectionable or unhealthy substances; and the petitioners are prosecuted in C. C. No. 92 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, rayadurg for illegal possession and transport and sale of the toddy in contravention of the license. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and excise, Anantapur by his proceedings dated 31-10-2007 noted that the Prohibition and excise Superintendent, Anantapur in his report informed about the renewal of the license for the shops in question on 22-5-2007 extending up to 30-9-2007 and that in fact the representation for permission to hire jeep and transport the toddy was made to the authorities concerned, who had forgotten to pass any orders thereon. The Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise found the samples of toddy to have been scientifically examined and opined to contain no objectionable substance. He also noted that there was no specific provision to obtain permission for hiring a vehicle and transporting the toddy. Therefore, the authority passed an order dropping any action for confiscation of the jeep as the non production of the renewal license when demanded by the police was not due to the fault of the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE petitioners applied for discharge before the trial Court in Crl. M. P. No. 658 of 2009 and the learned Magistrate dismissed the same on 2-7-2009 poining that any discharge under Section 239 of the Code of criminal Procedure does not arise, as on the facts and circumstances, there exdisted a prima facie case against the petitioners. ( 4 ) WHILE it should be noted that the learned magistrate may not be acting without jurisdiction when he considered a plea for discharge to be untenable due to the existence of prima facie case, the request of the petitioners for interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court deserves consideration. ( 4 ) WHILE it should be noted that the learned magistrate may not be acting without jurisdiction when he considered a plea for discharge to be untenable due to the existence of prima facie case, the request of the petitioners for interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court deserves consideration. ( 5 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence to sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 provide for a license to be in force for a license period of 5 years ending with 30th September of the fifty consecutive excise year. The rules also provide for renewal of the license under rule 6 though no specific mention appeals to have been made to cover any particular period, after the expiry of the original license period and before the license is renewed. The deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and excise himself has already noted the helpless situation in which against the petitioners were placed in this regard due to the pendency of their application for renewal with the competent authorities and also further due to the pendency of their representation for permission to heir a vehicle and transport toddy without appropriate orders being passed. ( 6 ) TODDY is a commodity, which the petitioners could not have stored with impugnity, without the fear of decomposition for any considerable length of time and in possessing and transporting the toddy, the petitioners were not accused of committing or intending to commit any other offence under any excise law. ( 7 ) UNDER the circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure has to be invoked in the interests of justice in favour of the petitioners and the criminal petition has to be allowed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the further proceedings in C. C. No. 92 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Rayadurg, are quashed against the petitioners and the criminal Petition is allowed. Criminal Petition is allowed