THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2550 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the order bearing Cr.No.11054/2009/CPE/T3, dated 09.12.2009, by which, the case in PR.No.39/2009-10 registered against him for violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) is ordered to be compounded by collecting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 26.03.2009, the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station (Crime), Nellore, along with his staff inspected the licensed premises of the petitioner, who is running a shop under the name and style of M/s.Sri Sai Wines at Nellore. At that point of time, they found that the petitioner was selling liquor in loose bottles as such the said bottles were seized along with the sale proceeds of Rs.13,000/-, the salesman was arrested and a case in Crime No.50 of 2009 was registered under Sections 34(a) and 36(c) of the Act. Such liquor was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, after the case was transferred to the excise authorities. The Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the liquor, which was seized from the shop of the petitioner, was diluted. At that point of time, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking to compound the offence, by paying Rs.10,000/- vide challan No.28654, dated 02.06.2009, but the second respondent referred the same to the first respondent - Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, for passing necessary orders. When the representation filed by the petitioner was forwarded to him, the first respondent has considered the matter and ordered that the case registered against the petitioner is compounded for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for compounding the offence by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and therefore, there is no basis or jurisdiction to the first respondent to compound the offence for Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also his case that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who seized the liquor bottles from his shop, is not having any jurisdiction to seize the same. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that as per the license conditions, the petitioner shall sell the liquor in sealed bottles but he has violated the conditions thereof by involving in loose sales. It is further stated that in the laboratory analysis, the liquor was found diluted and in view of the same, the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 34(a) and 36(c) of the Act. While referring to the authority of the Sub-Inspector of Police to seize the stocks, it is stated that in view of the representation filed by the petitioner, the offence committed by him was compounded by the first respondent, who is the competent authority, under Section 47 of the Act. It is not in dispute that in view of registration of crime against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, he submitted a representation seeking to compound the offence, and deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards compounding fee. Further, the competent authority, who is conferred with the power under Section 47 of the Act, ordered for compounding the case of the petitioner at Rs.1,00,000/-. From a reading of Section 47 of the Act, it is clear that the first respondent is empowered to compound the offence by accepting Rs.1,00,000/-. Merely because the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- along with the representation filed seeking compounding of offence that does not mean that the first respondent has accepted the same amount while ordering compounding of offence. In view of the discretion conferred on the authority under Section 47 of the Act and while such discretion is exercised by ordering compounding of offence at Rs.1,00,000/-, it cannot be said that such fixation is either illegal or arbitrary. Even the allegation of the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector of Police was not competent to inspect and seize the liquor bottles also cannot be accepted for the reason that as much as Section 52 of the Act empowers not only the Prohibition and Excise Officer but also not below the rank of any police officer to inspect such places and seize the intoxicant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality either in effecting seizure by the Sub-Inspector of Police or passing order, dated 09.12.2009 by the competent authority under Section 47 of the Act compounding the offence for Rs.1,00,000/-. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- along with the application and deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 09.02.2010, he is granted three (3) months time to pay the balance amount. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th JULY, 2010. kvni