IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 9249, 9250 & 9251 OF 2010. Between: Rajan Singh s/o Late Sri Sohan Lal Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o: 14-10-882, Puranapool, Hyderabad … Petitioner A2 V/s The State of A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor & Anr. … Respondent- complnt. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R. Raghunandan Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 9249, 9250 & 9251 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : As common questions of fact and law are involved in all these criminal petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These Criminal Petitions have been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A2 in FIR.No. 1052 of 2010, FIR.No. 1088 of 2010 and FIR.No. 1071 of 2010 of Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, Doolpet, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 that the allegation against the petitioner-A2 is that as per the averments of the FIR is that in the course of raids conducted by the second respondent at H.No.14-10-882, situate at Jumarath Bazaar, Hyderabad, A-1 was found doing illicit liquor business and when the second respondent questioned A-1 from where he purchased jaggery ? he replied that he purchased the jaggery from the petitioner-A2 and as such according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2, on mere confession made by A-1 that he purchased the jaggery from the petitioner-A2, he cannot be prosecuted for the offences under section 7-A read with section 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and section 34 (e), 13 (i) (f) and 42 (c), 34 (II) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commissioner of Excise issued instructions to the Jaggery Traders in the area including the petitioner-A2 on 30-8-2010 not to sell the jaggery to the persons, who indulge in doing illicit liquor business and that in fact they should stop selling jaggery. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a registered trader under Value Added Tax and has been selling jaggery to the petitioner as well as to various persons including cattle feeders, tiffin centers, dairy farms and also sells to the traders who do business of peppermints, Agarbathi and Mehdndi etc., and that there were no regulations to obtain from the purchaser that the jaggery is being purchased for a particular purpose or the other. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State would submit that the nexus between A-1 and A-2 will be established during the course of investigation, and therefore, the investigation shall be allowed to continue. I am thoroughly convinced by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is established that A-2 sold the jaggery to A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the offences under section 7-A read with section 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and section 34 (e), 13 (i) (f) and 42 (c), 34 (II) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. From the material available on record, it cannot be said that A-2 sold the jaggery to A-1 for the purpose of enabling him to indulge in I.D. liquor business and if that is so, no useful purpose will be served by continuing investigation against the petitioner-A2. Under these circumstances, absolutely continuing investigation against A-2 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the investigation in FIR.No. 1052 of 2010, FIR.No. 1088 of 2010 and FIR.No. 1071 of 2010 of Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, Doolpet, Hyderabad, in so far as petitioner-A2 is concerned is hereby quashed. The Criminal Petitions are hereby allowed. JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 20/09/2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 9249, 9250 & 9251 OF 2010 (COMMON ORDER) 20-09-2010 I s L