The Court quashed criminal petitions under the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Acts. It held that mere supply of jaggery and alum does not justify prosecution without evidence showing the accused knew the materials were for illicit liquor manufacture.
Criminal proceedings in P.R.No.1484, 811, 810, 832, 809 of 2011-12 against the petitioners are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON Nos.8 7 2 0 , 8 7 2 1 , 8 7 2 2 , 8 7 2 3 an d 8 7 2 5 of 2 0 1 1
COMMON ORDER:
These petitions are filed, seeking for quash of the proceedings against the respective petitioners in P.R.No.1484 of 2011-12, 811 of 2011, 810 of 2011-12, 832 of 2011-12, 809 of 2011-12 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. The offences alleged agiasnt the petitioners are under Sections 7(A) r/ w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.
2
and alum from him, was using the same for illicit distillation of liquor. It also observed that even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses and panchanama were taken as true, at best, it would only go to show that A1, who has allegedly distilled liquor, purchased black jaggery and alum, which are raw materials for preparation of ID liquor from the petitioner therein and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner therein, knowing fully well, that A1 was involved in manufacture of ID liquor, sold black jaggery and alum to him.
1 2002 (1) ALD 210 (FB)
3
other purpose. It is not in dispute that black jaggery can be used for purposes other than preparation of ID liquor.
4
810 of 2011-12, 832 of 2011-12, 809 of 2011-12 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T. RAJANI , J
September 18, 2018 LMV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for supplying raw materials intended for illicit liquor distillation should be quashed where there is no proof of accused's knowledge.
Whether prosecution must prove prima facie that accused sold materials with knowledge of illicit use before proceedings can continue.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CRLP.No.571 of 2011 dated 10.06.2015Referred¶7
GANESH TRADERS v. DISTRICT COLLECTORReferred¶8
GANESH TRADERS v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT JUS TICE T. RAJANI
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
