IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 26537 of 2005 BETWEEN: 1 Eedigi Ravinder Goud S/o Rama Goud, R/o Khasimpur Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. 2 Eedigi Srinivas Goud S/o Rama Goud, R/o Khasimpur Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of A.P., rep by Station House Officer, Chiragpally P.S., Medak District. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Inspector SHO, Zaheerabad, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the FIR issued in Crime NO. 77 of 2004-06 dated 25-05-2005 on the file of SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Zaheerabad, Medak District, and Quash the same as illegal in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CHILUMALA PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners question the action of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Station House Officer, Zaheerabad in registering a case in Cr.No.77 of 2005- 06 dated 25.05.2005 against them for the offence under Section 37 (A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e. for adulteration of toddy, which resulted in the death of a person, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioners submit that on a complaint filed by one Mr. Marpally Srinivas, the Station House Officer, Chiragapally Police Station, Medak District registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2005 for the offence under Section 37(A) of the Act at about 11.30 AM and on the self-same complaint the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Zaheerabad Police Station/second respondent registered a case in Cr.No.77 of 2005-06 for the offence under Section 37(a) read with Section 37(A) of the Act on 25.05.2005 at 6.40 PM i.e. in the evening of the same day. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence and in fact, in Cr.No.26 of 2005 registered by the Police the investigation has been completed and the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chiragpally Police station also filed charge sheet against seven accused for the offence under Section 37(A) of the Act and Section 22 of NDPS Act for the contravention of Section 8(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 and the same was taken on file as PRC.No.35 of 2006, later the same was committed to the Sessions Court in SC.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the same is pending. 4. I am of the opinion that when the police registered a comprehensive case for the grave offence under Section 37(A) of the Act read with Section 22 of the NDPS Act, the registration of the second FIR by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, at a later point of time, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. No doubt, both the Police as well as the Excise Officers are competent to register cases, investigate the same and file charge sheets for prosecution of the accused under the Act as well as under the NDPS Act. In the instant case, as the case registered by the police is at the earliest point of time, any subsequent investigation done by the Excise authorities, shall be treated as part and parcel of the crime committed by the accused pursuant to the registration of the case in Cr.No.26 of 2005 at the earliest point of time. Therefore, I am of the opinion that for one offence the accused cannot be tried separately by two independent authorities. The police shall rely on any additional investigation done by the Prohibition & Excise authorities and examine the concerned Excise Officials in the pending case in SC.No.98 of 2006 but the Excuse authorities cannot independently proceed against the accused in Cr.No.77 of 2005-06. 5. Accordingly, the registration of the crime and filing of charge sheet in Cr.No.77 of 2005-06 is set aside keeping it open to the Station House Officer, Chiragpally Police Station, to summon and examine the concerned Excise officials to establish the guilt of the accused/petitioners herein in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 24, 2008 DSK