Allowed

E.Prakasam Naidu v. The State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2023CRLP/4245/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for violation of Excise Act conditions. The Court held that since the offence was compoundable under the Excise Act and had already been compounded by the Department, the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 121 of 2017 dated 19.12.2017 is hereby quashed and the present Criminal Petition is allowed.

E.Prakasam Naidu Vs The State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4245 of 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

E Rangaiah Naidu, aged about 64 years, R/o d No 2- 21, Uttrapu Kandriga, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of AP, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi

¶11

...Respondent/Respondent

¶12

^ Ku^noo?Distrfc1^^’ Prohibition and Excise, MBPP,^Yemmiganuru,

¶13

...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶14

f ^ Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances s ated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.121 of 2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Puttur, Chittoor District.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Masthan Naidu Cherukuri, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2.

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4245 OF 2018

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The 2^^ respondent herein registered a crime vide FIR no. 121 of 2017, dated 19.12.2017 for the offence punishable^under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘Excise Act’) for violation of license conditions by the licensee, vide ref NO.230/2017/A2, dated 29.10.2018. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Act, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh has compounded the offence on receiving the compounding fee of Rs. 1,00,000/and initiated departmental action against M/s. L.N.T. Wines, G.SI.No.312, Puttur Municipality^inCr.No.l21 of 2017 of Puttur Station limits under section 47 (1) Excise Act, without prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending against the licensee in respective court and directed the Prohibition^andExcise Superintendent, Tirupathi for taking necessary action.

¶21

Sri N. Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence under Section 34(a) of Excise^Actwasa compoundable offence and the excise department has^receivedan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/(one lakh rupees only) vide challan No. 11792, dated 29.01.2018 and further stated that in similar circumstance this Court has quashed the proceedings^inCriminal Petition No. 12804 of 2017. Hence learned counsel for the

¶22

¶23

petitioner would urge to quash the proceedings, as the offence has been compounded on 29.01.2018 by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Act. On perusal of the Criminal Petition No. 12804 of 2017, it is clear that the Court has quashed the proceedings on the ground that when the offence is compounded, the accused is deemed to have been acquitted, therefore nothing remains to be investigated into by the investigating agency except filing final report.

¶24

Sri Suiya Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly submitted and furnished the order copy and relied on the judgment of High of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad Rupenaguntla Siva Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009 (1) A.P.L.J. 411 (HC) for the proportion that

¶25

m appropriate cases, the Court can commute the sentence though there is a minimum sentence is prescribed. The said proposition was enunciated relying in the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘Santo sh Kumar vs . Municipal Corporation reported ini 2000 (4) Crimes 32 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has taken the view that though there is a minimum sentence prescribed, the Court can commute the sentence in appropriate cases”.

¶26

In view of the judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, undoubtedly, the offence can be

¶27

¶28

compounded in view of the provision contemplated under^Section 37(a) of the Excise Act. The Commissioner of Prohibition^andExcise Act, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, has compounded the^offenceon receiving an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the petitioner^herein.

¶29

Therefore, in view of the supra referred judgments,^the present FIR No. 121 of 2017, dated 19.12.2017 is liable to be quashed, by allowing the Criminal Petition, accordingly the FIR No. 121 of 2017 is hereby quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/-N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

..jWSECTION OFFICER

The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. The Station House Officer District. Prohibition and Excise Station, Puttur, Chittoor

¶37