Allowed

Jella Madhava Rao, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Telangana HC7 Feb 2011CRLRC/245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that Section 31 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 overrides the jurisdictional bar in Section 46E. Consequently, the learned Magistrate is empowered to release seized stocks under Section 457 Cr.P.C. on furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed with a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate to release 600 kgs of black jaggery on condition that the petitioner furnishes security of Rs.20,000 with

Jella Madhava Rao, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2011

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Jella Madhavarao .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Khammam

¶8

2. The State of A.P.

¶9

rep. By the State Public Prosecutor .. Respondents

¶10

JUDGMENT:-

¶11

The petitioner is the owner of 600 kgs of black jaggery, and when the stocks are being unloaded in the godown of one J. Srinivasa Rao, at Bathulapally village, Kallur village and Mandal, Khammam District the Excise police, Sathupally raided the godown and seized the stocks and registered a case in C.O.R. No. 382/2010-11 under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P. No.212 of 2011 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. requesting the trial Court to release the stocks towards his custody. However, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Sathupally, Khammam District, dismissed the application stating that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as envisaged under Section 46E of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The said docket order dated 31.01.2011 is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Case.

¶12

Having regard to the judgments passed by this Court in

¶13

P. Swarupa & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^[1] , Jitendra Palnitker Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^[2] and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujara t^[3] , though Section 46-E of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act states that there is a bar of jurisdiction to entertain any application pertaining to release of the vehicle or stocks, such as, Jagerry or alum, Section 31 of the Act has an overriding effect over the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. In the light of the said provision of law, it shall be held that the learned Magistrate is empowered to pass orders

¶14

either under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. and release the vehicle or stocks, such as, Jaggery or alum by way of interim custody.

¶15

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the stage of admission, with a direction to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Sathupally, Khammam District to release 600 kgs of black jaggery seized in connection with C.O.R. No.

¶16

382/2010-11 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Sathupally, on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for a sum of Rs.20,000/with one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Sathupally.

¶17

07.02.2011 bcj

¶18

[1] 1996(1) ALT Crl. 130 [2] 1995(3) ALD 80 [3] (2002) 10 SCC 283

Jella Madhava Rao, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jella Madhava Rao, v. The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Donthy Reddy Achyuta Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Donthy Reddy Achyuta Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malothu Sudhakar Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Smt. T. Vijaya Kumari , T. Vijaya Vs Sri G. Govinda Rao

Kamakshi Extractions, Vs Prakathi Spinners Pvt. Ltd.

Chidepudi Malla Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh