K. Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SHO, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.

¶14

S AMJAD BASHA, OCC- SUB-INSPECTOR, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 1030 of 2022 file of Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, registered under section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of proceedings in C.C. No. 1030 OF 2022 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, registered under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968, before this Hon'ble Court and pass

¶19

2

¶20

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1030 OF 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, registered under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968, including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused till the pending disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶24

1.DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶26

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 8CrPC9) has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.1030 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, arising out of a case in Crime No.19 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Srikalahasti, registered against the petitioner/Accused, for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity 8the Act, 19689).

¶32

The allegations levelled as against the petitioner/ accused in the charge sheet, in brief, are that, on 12.03.2020 at about 12.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Vijayawada STF Team and respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Srikalahasti and other personnel went to the house of petitioner/accused and found that it was locked. They issued house search proceeding to one N.Siddaiah, residing in the ground floor of the building and on search, they found 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky per bottles pertaining to the Andhra Pradesh State Liquor (Duty Paid Liquor) without Holographic Excise Adhesive Labels (HEAL). The contraband was seized after collecting sample under the cover of a Panchanama, and pursuant to the same, a case in

¶33

4

¶34

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶35

Crime No.19 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of the Act, 1968 was registered and investigated into. The petitioner/accused was granted anticipatory bail vide Order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2020 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. L.W5/Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the samples and opined that the seized contraband is of Indian Made Liquor. After receipt of all Analysis Report and after completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that as on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner/accused was not present. The Excise Police, on credible information, conducted raid and allegedly seized 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky bottles from the shoe rack in front of the petitioner9s house. Even accepting the said accusation, the offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act, 1968 would not be made out, for the reason that, the said contraband has not been seized from the possession of petitioner/accused, in fact, they were seized from the shoe-rack, kept outside the door of the house.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home too concurs with the fact that the alleged contraband was not seized from the possession of petitioner/accused, but it is contended that

¶38

5

¶39

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶40

the shoe-rack from where the contraband was seized, belongs to the petitioner/accused and it was placed outside the house of the petitioner/accused and thereby, an inference can be drawn that the petitioner/accused was in possession of illicit contraband.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents/State and perused the entire material available on record.

¶42

There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors .¹ , wherein the Hon9ble Apex Court held as under:

¶43

<In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

¶44

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶45

6

¶46

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶47

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶48

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶49

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶50

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶51

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶52

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶53

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which

¶54

7

¶55

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶56

a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶57

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.=

¶58

A perusal of the Panchanama Report dated 12.03.2020 goes to show that on the said date at about 12.30 a.m., as per credible information, the Inspector of Police, STF Team along with other personnel went to the scene of offence situated at Door No.2287, 1^st floor, Kondamitta, Srikalahasti and found one male person in the ground floor and the police informed him about the receipt of a complaint of liquor bottles storage in the first floor of the said building. Thereafter, they proceeded to first floor and found the house was locked and that, they enquired the owner of the house viz. N.Siddaiah, who informed that the petitioner/accused went to his village two days ago. In the presence of L.W1/S.Vamsidhar Reddy and L.W2/G.Bhaskar, the Inspector of Police searched the corridor and found one white and yellow coloured cloth bag pertaining to CMR Shopping Mall in the footwear stand rack. Respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise,

¶59

8

¶60

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶61

Srikalahasti verified the said cloth bag in the presence of L.W1/ S.Vamsidhar Reddy and L.W2/G.Bhaskar and noticed that the bag contained 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky pet bottles pertaining to the Andhra Pradesh State Liquor (Duty Paid Liquor) without Holographic Excise Adhesive Labels (HEAL). Later, respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Srikalahasti seized the contraband under the cover of a Panchanama, after collecting one liquor bottle from the bag, as sample for Chemical Analysis. In pursuant to the said Panchanama, a case in Crime No.19 of 2020 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act, 1968.

¶62

In order to attract an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act, 1968, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in unauthorized possession, transportation, or sale of any intoxicant in violation of the Act, Rules, or permits. The key elements include proving conscious possession and, often, a chemical analysis report confirming the substance as an illicit intoxicant. The prosecution must also show the accused was in conscious possession of the illicit material, typically supported by a Mediators Report and seizure evidence.

¶63

In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner/accused

¶64

was away from his house as he went to his village two days prior to

¶65

9

¶66

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶67

the date of raid. The Inspector of Police, STF Team, Vijayawada went to the house of petitioner/accused, on receipt of credible information and he figured that the door of the petitioner/accused house was locked and with the assistance of one N.Siddaiah, who is staying at ground floor, went to the first floor and issued search proceedings, for which the said N.Siddaiah did not accept for the search. In view of the said reason, respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of P&E Excise, Srikalahasti in the presence of L.W1/S.Vamsidhar Reddy and L.W2/G.Bhaskar conducted search and seized the cloth bag containing 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky pet bottles from the shoe-rack.

¶68

Admittedly, it is not the case of police personnel that

¶69

the shoe-rack was locked and they broke open the same. It is pertinent to mention here that one N.Siddaiah, who showed the house of petitioner/accused, surprisingly, was neither examined nor was shown as a witness in the charge sheet. Except saying in Panchanama that the search was conducted and seizure was effected in the presence of L.W1/S.Vamsidhar Reddy and L.W2/ G.Bhaskar, their personal details and how their presence was secured at the wee-hours of the incident was not mentioned. There is no other material witness to connect the petitioner/accused to the subject crime. When the place, i.e. shoe-rack, where the

¶70

10

¶71

SRK, J Crl.P.No.5312 of 2023

¶72

contraband was seized, is accessible to everyone, finger cannot be pointed towards the petitioner/accused. More so, even according to prosecution story, on the date of the incident, the petitioner/accused was not at his house and he went to his village two days prior to the date of incident. Therefore, even if the entire allegations in charge sheet and the material collected by the Investigating agency are accepted as true and correct, there is no prima facie case to connect the petitioner/accused to the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act, 1968. Pursuant to the accusation made as against the petitioner/accused, the chances of convicting him when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing him to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/accused.

¶73

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Calendar Case No.1030 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, as against the petitioner/accused are quashed.

¶74

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶75

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶76

9^th April, 2026. DNB

K. Rambabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rambabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thatiparthi Sasi Kumar Vs State of Ap

Gompa Nooka Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vankadara Chinna Chennappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Bashu Saheb Vs the State of Ap

Attaluri Phani Venkata Gopal, Vs The State- Station House Officer

Maruthi Ramesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh