Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 346 (AP)

Juluri Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-06-18

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2021
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quash of F.I.R. in Crime No.78 of 2021 of Vissannapet Police Station, Krishna District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. A case in Crime No.78 of 2021 was registered by Vissannapet Police against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act on the ground that the petitioner has sold black jaggery to other persons in this case, who are indulging in manufacturing illicit distilled liquor by using the said black jaggery. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only doing business and in the process of doing his business that he has sold the black jaggery to the other persons and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has indulged in manufacturing of any illicit distilled liquor by using the said black jaggery. He would further submit that this is a covered matter in view of the earlier common order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.406 of 2021 and batch, dated 29.01.2021, whereby this Court has quashed the F.I.Rs. registered based on similar facts. He would also further submit that the petitioner is similarly placed and thereby prayed for quash of the F.I.R. registered against him also. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the fact whether the petitioner has sold the black jaggery in the process of his business or whether he has sold the said jaggery to the other accused persons with knowledge that the same is going to be used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor or not is to be ascertained during the course of investigation and as such, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed at this stage. He would submit that storing black jaggery or transporting black jaggery clearly constitutes an offence as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah, (2009) 1 SCC 114 . Therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this Criminal Petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. The fact that the petitioner is doing business and that he has sold the black jaggery in the process of his business is not disputed before this Court. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this Criminal Petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. The fact that the petitioner is doing business and that he has sold the black jaggery in the process of his business is not disputed before this Court. Therefore, as the petitioner has been doing business and as he has sold the said black jaggery to other persons in the process of his business, it cannot be said that he has sold the said jaggery for the purpose of manufacturing illicit distilled liquor. This Court as per the order passed in Crl.P.No.6911 of 2019, dated 15.11.2019, has quashed the F.I.Rs. registered on identical facts. Therefore, the petitioner herein, who is similarly placed, is also entitled for quash of F.I.R. It is also relevant to note that in Crl.P.No.6911 of 2019, this Court held as follows: "Even recently the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 18.04.2017 framing certain guidelines, wherein it was held that the jaggery or black jaggery is not a prohibited commodity. Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.149, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Vijayawada, issued instructions in Cr.No.188/DOE/2014/B1, dated 18.04.2017 holding that the jaggery/black jaggery is not a prohibited commodity, no inconvenience shall be caused to the farmers or traders/dealers or users for lawful possession." 7. Based on the said G.Os. and considering the earlier orders of this Court quashing the F.I.Rs of similar nature, this Court in another case in Crl.P.No.3930 of 2020 quashed the F.I.R. registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is distinguishable on facts of the present case. That was not a case where the accused was doing business and that he has been in possession of the black jaggery in connection with his business and sold the same. That was a case where the accused was found to be in illegal possession of the black jaggery, storing the same or transporting the same. That was not a case where the accused was doing business and that he has been in possession of the black jaggery in connection with his business and sold the same. That was a case where the accused was found to be in illegal possession of the black jaggery, storing the same or transporting the same. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that it is not a fit case for quash of F.I.R. In the instant case, as already discussed supra, the accused has been in possession of the black jaggery in connection with his business actually and he has sold the black jaggery in the process of doing the said business. Therefore, possession of the black jaggery by the petitioner is not illegal and selling the same to other persons is also not illegal. So, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No.78 of 2021 of Vissannapet Police Station, Krishna District, registered against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.