Allowed

Mr.Rajan Singh v. The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRLP/13704/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings against A-2 for possessing and selling jaggery under Sections 7-A of A.P. Prohibition Act and sections of A.P. Excise Act. Court held that since jaggery is a legal commodity and possessed by A-2, the prosecution constituted harassment and abuse of process, violating constitutional rights.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in the respective crime numbers are quashed as prayed.

Mr.Rajan Singh Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.Nos.13313, 13314, 13315,

¶2

13682, 13704 and 13689 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

In all these petitions common question of facts and law are involved, hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Crime Nos.1327/2010-11, 1097/201011, 1288/2010-11, 1100/2010-11, 1218/2010-11 and 1171/2010-11 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, respectively registered for offences punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(i)(f), 41, 42(c) and 34(11) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶6

3. The petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.13313, 13314, 13315, 13689 and 13704 of 2010 is A-2 in Crime Nos.1327/2010-11, 1097/2010-11, 1288/2010-11, 1100/2010-11 and 218/2010-11 whereas the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13682 of 2010 is A-2 in Crime No.1171/2010-11. The second respondent in all the criminal petition is the defacto complainant in the criminal cases.

¶7

For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the criminal cases.

¶8

4. The main allegation made against A-2 in all the cases is that they involved in possessing and selling jaggery for the purpose of preparing illicit distilled liquor which was seized on different dates.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for A-2 in all the cases would contend that possessing or selling jaggery is not prohibited under any of the provisions of the Excise Act, and apart from that A-2 in Crime Nos.1327/2010-11, 1097/2010-11, 1288/2010-11, 1100/2010-11 and 218/2010-11 got license to sell jaggery and other articles. A copy of the license issued by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer is filed before the Court, it is to the same effect. Therefore, he pleads for quashing the proceedings. He also has placed reliance on an unreported

¶10

judgment of this Court rendered in Crl.P.Nos.9249, 9250 and 9251 of 2010 dated 20-09-2010 in which A-2 therein who got license to possess and sell jaggery was charged with the same offences on the same ground of possessing and selling jaggery and under those circumstances, it was held that the question of prosecuting A-2 for the alleged offences would not arise at all as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the corresponding criminal case which if done would be nothing but abuse of the process of law by reason of which the proceedings against A-2 were quashed.

¶11

6. The same analogy is applicable here also. It is something strange that even though the possession and sale of jaggery have not been prohibited under any of the provisions of the Prohibition Act or Excise Act, still A-2 in all the cases were booked for the alleged offences on the same ground of possessing and selling jaggery. If there is supporting evidence the matter may be judged from different angle. Being an excise official the concerned authority cannot be said to have been done so due to ignorance of law. In other words it makes very clear that having knowledge about the same fact, still he involved in registering cases against A-2. It gives an impression that either for the purpose of harassing them or for the purpose of seeing that they would not indulge in committing any excise offences, such a recourse would have been taken but the authority should not have forgotten that being an excise official he had to carryout any operation in accordance with law and not otherwise. He cannot himself be a source of harassing innocent people by booking false cases against them being the concerned authority. If the authorities, who are expected to maintain law and order in the State, conducts themselves in a way which is against law, there would be anarchy in the society. If an authority who is expected to protect law behaves in derogation of law, it is to be viewed very gravely. In order to maintain peace and tranquility in the society all the authorities concerned with have to carry out their legitimate duties in accordance with law.

¶12

7. For the reasons discussed above, the proceedings, which are

¶13

in the form of harassing A-2 in all the cases and also curtailing his life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, are liable to be quashed.

¶14

8. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings as prayed for in all the cases.

¶15

9. Mark a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for giving necessary instructions to all those concerned to see that such unfortunate incidents are not recurred.

¶16

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶17

Date: 11-10-2012 YCR

Mr.Rajan Singh v. The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Rajan Singh v. The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

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

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Deva Sateesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhogapuram Krishnamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palepu Shashireka, Vs M/s. Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited having its

B. Priya Kumar Vs SMt. B. Sabitha

Mr.Rajesh Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.