THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8144 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/A.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R. No.1111/2008-09 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda district. 2. The brief facts are that, on 29.3.2009, the second respondent along with his staff, was conducting I.D. raids in Vellaturu village and searched the house of A.1 under cover of panchanama and on interrogation A.1 confessed that he purchased the raw materials to manufacture illicit liquor from petitioner/A.2. Basing on the confession made by A.1, the second respondent and his staff raided the godown of petitioner/A.2 and seized 5 bags of black jaggery and 40 Kgs of alum under cover of panchanama, and thereafter, registered the present case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence to show that black jaggery which was seized from the possession of the petitioner was intended for use in manufacture of illicit liquor and therefore continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. There cannot be any dispute that, when the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. No doubt, mere possession of black jaggery or alum by itself is not an offence. But, both are being used as raw material for manufacturing illicit liquor. The question, whether the petitioner was storing the black jaggery with intention to sell the same to the persons who are involved in the manufacture of illicit liquor or not, cannot be decided at this stage. 5. Further more, in the similar circumstances, the Apex Court in a decision in State of A.P. v. Bajjoori Kanlhaiah[1], held thus: “In all these cases, there were either statements of witnesses or seizure of (black jaggery and alum materials being used for manufacturing) illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the accused persons concerned guilty has to be considered at the time of trial.” Following the said judgment, it is not a fit case to interfere at the threshold stage of investigation. 6. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 06.10.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8144 of 2009 Date: 6.10.2009 Between: Mudem Rama Linga Reddy …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8144 of 2009 06.10.2009 [1] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 114