Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 5 (AP)

G. Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-03

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2022
ORDER : 1. This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking quash of F.I.R. in Crime No. 242 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur, Chittoor District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 242 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur, Chittoor District. A case under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Excise Act”) was registered against him on the ground that on 11.06.2020, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of two tetra packets of Raja Whisky of 90 ml each. Therefore, the aforesaid case under Section 34(a) of the Excise Act was registered against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government itself has issued G.O.Ms. No. 411, Revenue (Excise-II), dated 24.09.2019, whereby the Government has permitted possession or transportation of liquor and other intoxicants up to three bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and three bottles of Foreign Liquor etc. So, he would submit that as the petitioner is in possession of only two tetra packets of Raja Whisky containing only 90 ml each, that he is in the permissible limits and no offence was committed by him. Therefore, he would submit that the very launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioner in the said facts and circumstances of the case amount to abuse of process of Court. He would further submit that as per common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 10289 and 14386 of 2020, this Court held possession or transporting liquor of quantity which is within the permissible limits as per the aforesaid G.O. is not an offence and that this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners therein. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner, who is similarly placed, is also entitled for quash of the criminal proceedings against him. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the quantity of liquor that has been in possession of the petitioner is within the permissible limits as per the aforesaid G.O. and as it is a covered matter in view of the earlier common order of this Court. So, he prayed to pass appropriate orders accordingly in this criminal petition also. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the quantity of liquor that has been in possession of the petitioner is within the permissible limits as per the aforesaid G.O. and as it is a covered matter in view of the earlier common order of this Court. So, he prayed to pass appropriate orders accordingly in this criminal petition also. 6. Thus, it is not disputed before this Court that the quantity of liquor that has been in possession of the petitioner is within the permissible limits as per the G.O.Ms. No. 411 issued by the Government. Therefore, no offence was committed by the petitioner. So, the very launching of criminal proceedings against him in the said facts and circumstances of the case, amount to abuse of process of Court. 7. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the earlier common order of this Court cited supra and for the reasons stated therein, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 242 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur, Chittoor District, is hereby quashed. The possession of the vehicle that was seized in connection with the said crime shall also be delivered to the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgment. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.