HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7325 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ongole for the offences under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 135(C) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the RP Act’). On 16.02.1998, the excise officials visited the house situated at Mashumsha street, Mungamoor road, Ongole and found 94 boxes each containing 48 bottles of Jewel Prince Whisky, 56 boxes of Celler-99 Ex-Trafine Whisky each containing 48 bottles, 22 boxes of President Malted Whisky each containing 48 bottles, in all 172 boxes. A crime was registered in FIR.No.28 of 1998 on the file of the Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole against one accused Mannem Ramesh Babu S/o.Venkatarathnam. On seizing the bottles, Crl.MP.Nos.951, 952, 953 and 954 of 2000 were filed by Sr i P.Sreedhar Babu, Sri Puli Ramakrishna Reddy, Challapalli Murali and Polineni Venkatarao respectively before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, under Section 457 Cr.P.C. claiming interim custody of the seized property. The said petitions were allowed by the learned Magistrate on 19.06.2000 holding that the offence was detected on 16.02.1998 by the Inspector of Police, Ongole but he did not produce the property before the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur as per the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act and also did not file the charge sheet or final report against the accused and hence, he was directed to produce the property seized in Crime No.28 of 1998 before the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur within a week from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4231 of 2001 against the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and the Principal Secretary to Government, Hyderabad claiming that he is the partner of M/s.Teja Wines, that the fifth respondent, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police of Ongole Taluq Police Station in August 1998, constantly demanded bribe from him and used to destroy the bottles whenever his demands were not complied with, that the fifth respondent was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 28.08.1998 while he was paying bribe of Rs.10,000/- and that he was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 7, 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.0.2001 withdrawing permission granted to prosecute the fifth respondent. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 21.01.2003 holding that the second respondent therein did not have power and jurisdiction to withdraw the permission accorded to prosecute the fifth respondent and directed the concerned Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously. Charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.28 of 1998 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ongole against Mannem Ramesh Babu and six others including the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.6, for the offences under Section 34-A of the Act and Section 135(C) of the RP Act. Questioning the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, against the petitioner only to take vengeance as he has challenged G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.02.2001 withdrawing permission accorded to prosecute him before this Court in W.P.No.4231 of 2001 and, therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 18.12.2007, the entire record in C.C.No.9 of 2007 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ongole has been transferred to this Court. In the first information report, it is nowhere stated that the liquor bottles were seized from the house of the petitioner and while the original F.I.R., enclosed to the charge sheet, was registered only against one Mannem Ramesh, the names of six more persons were added as accused in the charge sheet for the offences under Section 34-A of the Act and Section 135(C) of the RP Act. Under Section 34(a) of the Act, any person, who, contravenes the provisions of the Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act- a. imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or (1) in the case of an offence falling under clause (a) (i) where the intoxicant involved in the offence is less than such quantity as may be notified in this behalf with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto three years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees five thousand but which may extend upto rupees twenty thousand; (ii) where the intoxicant involved in the offence is not less than the quantity notified as aforesaid with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend upto five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend upto rupees one lakh; For an offence under Section 135 (C) of the RP Act, the punishment to be imposed is six months, or with fine. The charge sheet itself discloses the date of offence as 16.02.1998 and as the same does not disclose the quantity to either attract clause (i) or (ii) of Section 34(a) of the Act, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him for his challenging the withdrawal of the prosecution against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station. Since the case falls under illustration (7) enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1], filing of charge sheet against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process and the charge sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Ongole, is accordingly quashed. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. A.GOPAL REDDY,J Date:18.11.2010 usd [1] AIR 1992 SC 604