transporting the same, discloses that on inquiry made after A-1 to A-3 were taken into custody that they revealed that the petitioner is cooperating with them in transporting the said liquor bottles and that the petitioner also paid Rs.20,000/- on 19.04.2021 i.e., on the previous day of offence through Google Pay for the purpose of purchasing the said liquor bottles. Therefore, the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the said offence in buying and transporting the liquor bottles along with A-1 to A-3 is prima facie apparent from the said special report. So, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise Act. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at the threshold and it requires full fledged investigation to find out the actual role played by the petitioner herein along with the other accused in commission of the said offence. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any valid legal ground warranting its interference at this stage, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, either to quash the F.I.R or to interdict the investigation. Therefore, the petition lacks merit.
