Allowed

Surapaneni Sampath, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2022CRLP/3523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition to quash an FIR under the AP Excise Act. The seizure of beer bottles occurred when a Government Order (GO) permitted possession of up to eight 650ml bottles. A subsequent stricter GO was not applicable retrospectively. The Court held the basis for the offence was absent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in FIR No.456 of 2020 quashed; miscellaneous applications pending thereafter stood closed.

Surapaneni Sampath, Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3523 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present petition is filed to quash proceedings in

¶5

FIR.NO.456 of 2020 dated 17.8.2020 of Tiruvuru Police Station.

¶6

A case has been registered against the petitioners for the

¶7

offence punishable under Section 34(A) of the AP Excise Act. On credible information, the Inspector of Police along with his staff, on 16.8.2020, went for sand check post, Kokilampadu Village, at which

¶8

time, three people were coming from Telangana State carrying a bag walking towards Tiruvuru and on seeing police, they tried to

¶9

escape. On enquiry, a person spoke that he is working as Software

¶10

Engineer in Hyderabad and due to lockdown he is residing at his

¶11

home in Vijayawada and that the other two persons are his friends

¶12

who came to meet relatives, and he with an intention to give party purchased beers and on seeing the police, out of scare, they tried to escape. Upon which, the police seized eight (8) 650 ML Beer

¶13

Bottles from them and thereafter registered FIR.No.456 of 2020

¶14

dated 17.8.2020.

¶15

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶17

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶18

Admittedly, the police seized eight (8) 650 ML Beer Bottles from the petitioners. A perusal of GO.Ms.No. 411, Revenue (ExciseII) Department, dated 24.9.2019, it is clear that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and in supersession of the orders issued in GO.Ms.No.274, dated 21.7.2014 the Government specified the maximum quantity of intoxicants which a person may have in his possession at a time without a permit or license with effect from

¶19

25.9.2019 to the following effect:-

¶20

“Indian Made Foreign Liquor – 3 bottles of any size Foreign Liquor - 3 bottles of any size Denatured/methylated Spirit – 3 bulk litres Beer - 6 bottles of 650 ml each Toddy - 2 bulk litres.

¶21

As per the above GO., a person can carry six beer bottles of

¶22

650 ml each. The police in case on hand seized eight (8) 650 ML

¶23

Beer Bottles from petitioners who are three in number.

¶24

¶25

In the subsequent GO.Ms.No.426 dated 11.10.2019 issued by

¶26

the same department, a modification was issued to the effect that a person may have maximum number of three beer bottles of any size in his possession at a time without permit or license with effect from 12.10.2019.

¶27

Admittedly, as on the date of seizure, the three petitioners

¶28

were in possession of eight beer bottles which is well within the permissible limit prescribed in GO.Ms.No.426, dated 11.10.2019. Subsequently, the Government issued another GO.Ms.No.310 Revenue (Excise) Department dated 26.10.2020 in modification to GO.Ms.No.426 dated 11.10.2019 reducing the maximum quantity

¶29

of intoxicants which a person may have in his possession at a time without a permit or license with effect from 12.10.2019 to the following effect:-

¶30

“Indian Made Foreign Liquor – 3 bottles of any size Foreign Liquor - 3 bottles of any size Denatured/methylated Spirit – 3 bulk litres Beer - 3 bottles of any size Toddy - 2 bulk litres.”

¶31

¶32

Clause 7 of GO.Ms.No.310 Revenue (Excise) Department dated 26.10.2020

¶33

“7. As per Section 9 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 no intoxicant shall be imported into the State of Andhra Pradesh except on payment of such Countervailing Duty and fees as may be levied under the Act with prior permission. The Government have notified rates of Countervailing duties as well as additional Countervailing duty vide G.O.Ms.No.394 Revenue (Excise-II) Dept. dt.21.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.243 Revenue (Excise-II) Dept. dt.27.06.2017 respectively. Any transport of intoxicants in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the notifications made under the Act is a punishable offence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. It follows that no intoxicant shall be permitted to be transported into the State of Andhra Pradesh, without payment of applicable duties, fees etc., payable under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and the rules, notifications, orders etc., issued thereunder, except under a permit granted in advance by the competent authority.”

¶34

Admittedly, as on the date of the seizure of beer bottles from the petitioners, GO.Ms.No.426 dated 11.10.2019 was in vogue. The subsequent GOs were brought into existence at a later point of time. Any amendment or modification to the earlier GOs can only have a prospective effect but not retrospective.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶36

since on the date of seizure of the beer bottles from the

¶37

¶38

petitioners, GO.Ms.No.426 dated 11.10.2019 was in vogue, by

¶39

virtue of which, any person may have requisite quantity in his possession at a time without a permit or license.

¶40

A plain reading of the FIR shows that on the said date of

¶41

incident, there are only eight beer bottles with the petitioners who

¶42

are three in number, which is within the permissible limit.

¶43

In view of such circumstances, when the basis ingredients of

¶44

the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioner to face the rigmarole of criminal trial, would be totally unjustified leading to

¶45

abuse of process of law. Hence, this court has no hesitation to

¶46

quash the proceedings in FIR.No.456 of 2020 dated 17.8.2020. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶48

_________________________

¶49

JUSTICEK. SREENIVASA REDDY

Dated: 8.09.2022 PA.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶54

228

¶55

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3523 OF 2020

DATED: 8.09.2022

PA.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶60

MAIN CASE No:CRL.P No.3523 of 2020

¶61

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶62

SL. NO.	DATE	ORDER
01.	8.09.2022	SRK, J
		Criminal Petition is Allowed. (VSO)
		_______ SRK,J PA.

¶63

¶64

SL.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE
NO.			NOTE

¶65

¶66

SL.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE
NO.			NOTE

Surapaneni Sampath, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surapaneni Sampath, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Papa Rao Vs B.Bastanamma Chitti

Sri Kotamreddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chesetti Rambabu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chesetti Jay Durga, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Radha Krishnan Vs State of Ap.