JUDGMENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Crime Report No.20/2011-12 dated 08.05.2011 on the file of the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Patancheru, Medak District. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the contraband alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner is within the permissible limit and therefore, no crime is committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that in a similar set of facts, this Court quashed the proceedings and the said decision is applicable in the case of K.Venkata Rama Raju v. State of A.P.2004 Crl. Law Journal 3672in all force to the case on hand. Learned Public Prosecutor produced the relevant G.O. showing entitlement of an individual to possess Indian liquor or foreign liquor without permit. I have perused the material papers. According to prosecution, on 08.05.2011, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Patancheru, Medak District, conducted search on the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of five bottles of Officers Choice Whisky of 180 ml each and five bottles of Bag Piper Whisky of 180 ml each. According to the panchanama, on enquiry, the police officer came to know that the petitioner is conducting IML sales at higher rate and that he is in illegal possession of these bottles for sale without valid license or permit, therefore, investigating officer registered the case against the petitioner on the ground that he is in possession of these bottles without any license or permit. According to petitioner, as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.268, Revenue (Ex.III), 1st April 1997, he is entitled to have possession of six Indian liquor quarter bottles of 750 ml each without permit for personal use. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of G.O.Ms.No.268 and according to it, the petitioner is entitled to possess Indian liquor of 4,500/- ml quantity. The total quantity 10 bottles that are said to have been seized from the petitioner comes to 1,800 ml only. On a simple mathematical calculation, the quantity possessed by the petitioner is far below the permitted quantity. This Court in K.Venkata Rama Raju v. State of A.P. (1 supra), in a similar set of facts considering the above referred G.O., held that an individual can possess six bottles of Indian liquor of 750 ml each without any permit. On a simple mathematical calculation, the quantity possessed by the petitioner is far below the permitted quantity. This Court in K.Venkata Rama Raju v. State of A.P. (1 supra), in a similar set of facts considering the above referred G.O., held that an individual can possess six bottles of Indian liquor of 750 ml each without any permit. In this case, even if the entire allegations in the Crime Report are taken as true and correct, no offence under Section 34(a) of the Excise Act (“the Act” for brevity) is made out against the petitioner herein since the quantity of the liquor that was found in possession of the petitioner is within the permitted quantity. Therefore, registering a case for an offence under Section 34(a) of the Act against the petitioner for possession of the above referred ten bottles of 180 ml each is unwarranted and for that reason, the Crime Report registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and Crime Report No.20/2011-12 dated 08.05.2011 on the file of the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Patancheru, Medak District, registered against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.