HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.Nos.10743, 10744, 10745, 10749, 10750 & 10751 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against petitioner/A-2 in Cr.Nos.1100, 1288, 1218, 1327, 1097, 1108 of 2010-2011 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/A-2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Records are perused. 3. In Crl.P.No.10743 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 07-09-2010 at 07-20 p.m. on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor at door No.14-10-334, Takkarwadi, Lower Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 15 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor, a white plastic bag containing 30 kgs of black jaggery and a drum containing 80 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1100 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a batti used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Chudi Bazar, Hyderbad. 4. In Crl.P.No.10744 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 29-09-2010 at 10-30 a.m., on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor in the open place near Kalimatha temple, Upper Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 18 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor, a white plastic bag containing 25 kgs of black jaggery and a drum containing 80 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1288 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a batti used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad. 5. In Crl.P.No.10745 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 21-09-2010 at 11-20 a.m. on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor at H.No.14-10-281, Gulzar Bitak, Takkarwadi, Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 20 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor containing in a plastic can, two plastic bags containing 60 kgs of black jaggery and mud pots containing 200 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1218 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a running still used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Jumerat Bazar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 6. In Crl.P.No.10749 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 05-10-2010 at 12-15 p.m. on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor at H.No.13-1-519/5, Gandi Hanuman, Upper Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 30 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor containing in two plastic cans, a plastic bag containing 25 kgs of black jaggery and one iron drum containing 80 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1327 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a batti used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Jumerat Bazar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 7. In Crl.P.No.10750 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 07-09-2010 at 03-00 p.m. on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor at H.No.14-10-501, Jhalihanuman, Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 20 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor containing in two plastic cans, a plastic bag containing 40 kgs of black jaggery and two mud pots containing 40 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1097 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a running still used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Jumerat Bazar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 8. In Crl.P.No.10751 of 2010, it is the case of prosecution that on 08-09-2010 at 11-15 p.m. on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal manufacture of ID liquor at open place near Nala Chunni Batti, Dhoolpet, the excise officials proceeded to the place and in the presence of panch witnesses seized the contraband of 30 litres of illicit distilled (ID) liquor, a plastic bag containing 25 kgs of black jaggery and one iron drum containing 85 litres of FJ wash, after drawing samples under a panchanama and arrested the petitioner/A-2, along with another (A-1) and a registered case in Cr.No.1108 of 2010-2011 for the offences under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sections 34(e), 13(1)(g) 41 42(c), 34(2) & 50 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The prosecution further alleges that A-1 was present at the premises at the time of search and at the time of search it was found that there was a batti used for brewing the ID liquor and there was a drum on the fire with aluminum vessel placed on it. The prosecution further alleges that on enquiry, A-1 revealed that he purchased the jaggery from petitioner/A-2 of M/s Akash Trading Company, Jumerat Bazar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 would contend that even according to the prosecution, it was only A-1 who was found brewing the ID liquor and petitioner/A-2 merely sold jaggery to A-1 and the sale of jaggery does not by itself constitute any offence under any of the provisions of the Excise Act, for which the F.I.R is registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that this Court in a batch of criminal petitions viz., Crl.P.Nos.9249 9250 & 9251 of 2010 filed by petitioner/A-2 quashed further investigation in F.I.R.Nos.1052, 1088 & 1071 of 2010 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet by order dated 20-09-2010 on the ground that “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 ID liquor business and if that is so, no useful purpose will be served by continuing investigation against the petitoner/A-2”. He would, therefore, submit that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the present investigation also, as even according to prosecution, A-2 merely sold jaggery to A-1 and, therefore, A-2 cannot be held liable, as he could not be imputed with any knowledge that it was used for manufacture of ID liquor. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner/A-2 is found to be supplying jaggery to A-1 and others regularly and a number of cases have been registered in that regard and the nexus between A-1 and other manufacturers of ID liquor on the one hand and A-2, the supplier of the raw material, on the other, is being probed and investigation cannot be thwarted at this threshold stage by quashing the FIR. In that connection he relied on a recent decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF A.P V. GOURISHETTY MAHESH & OTHERS in Crl.A.No.1252 of 2010 arising out of SLP.No.3061 of 2008. 11. The contents of panchanamas prima facie show that ID liquor was being manufactured at the place of the search and A-1 was present at the time of search and he disclosed that jaggery, the raw material for brewing the ID liquor, was purchased from petitioner/ A-2. Samples of jaggery and FJ wash were all taken and sent for chemical examination. The report of the chemical examiner is awaited and investigation is pending. 12. The petitoner/A-2 seeks quashing of further investigation on the ground that even according to prosecution he only sold the jaggery and, therefore he cannot be held responsible for the purpose for which it was purchased by A-1. It is to be noted that it is not a single or stray incident of A-2 selling the jaggery to A-1. Even according to the petitioner, previously several cases were filed against him along with the manufacturers of ID liquor wherein also it was alleged that he was supplying the jaggery. No doubt, the earlier batch of criminal petitions viz., Crl.P.Nos.9249, 9250 & 9251 of 2010 filed by petitioner/A-2 were allowed by this Court by order dated 20-09-2010 quashing further proceedings against the petitioner in F.I.R.Nos.1052, 1088 & 1071 of 2010. It is pertinent to note that in the above order it was observed that “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 ID liquor business”. 13. It is not in dispute that in addition to the above cases, the present batch of cases are registered against petitioner/A-2 and the petitioner/A-2 filed similar applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C in these matters and they are being disposed of together. In all these batch of cases, the manufacturers of the ID liquor, who are different persons, are arrayed as first accused and the petitioner herein figures as second accused. In all these cases, it is alleged that petitoner/A-2 is the supplier of the raw material viz., jaggery for manufacture of ID liquor by A- 1. The very fact that A-2 is alleged to be supplying jaggery to a number of manufacturers of ID liquor itself justifies the probe being made by the investigating agency to establish the nexus between the petitioner/ A-2 and the manufacturers of ID liquor who are arrayed as first accused in all these cases. When petitioner/A-2 is alleged to be involved in a series of similar transactions with different persons fitting into a set pattern and leading to brewing of ID liquor, an activity punishable under law, it is absolutely necessary to investigate further into the matter in depth to expose the nexus, if any, between the suppliers of the raw material and the manufacturers of the contraband items, so that all those found to be involved can be brought to justice. The petitioner/A-2 cannot be permitted to avoid investigation on the ground that he merely sold jaggery and he was not aware of the purpose for which it was purchased, especially when it is shown that he is allegedly involved in a number of such transactions and all the manufacturers who were caught have been pointing towards him as the supplier. Further investigation into the matter cannot, in the circumstances, be called an abuse of process of law so as to invoke the extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. It is well established principle of law that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and cannot be invoked to scuttle the investigation at the threshold itself. The parameters for exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C are laid down clearly in a catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In a recent decision in Crl.A.No.1252 of 2010 referred supra, the Apex Court, in similar circumstances relating to offences under the A.P. Excise Act and the A.P. Prohibition Act, held as follows:- “At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full- fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly”. The above case related to transportation of black jaggery and alum illegally and a case in Cr.No.288 of 2002-2003 was registered and seeking to quash the same, the accused filed Crl.P.No.4362 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court on 27-01-2006 quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.288 of 2002-2003 and aggrieved by the same, the State of A.P preferred the appeal by special leave before the Apex Court. The Apex court while allowing the appeal held as under: “……..Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. In the case on hand apart from specific allegations about the transportation of jaggery for preparation of illicit distilled liquor, prosecution also placed reliance on laboratory analysis report which mentions that the transported jaggery is fit for fermentation, producing alcohol unfit for consumption. In those circumstances, whether the raw material in existence would be sufficient for holding the accused persons concerned guilty or not has to be considered only at the time of trial. Further, at the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing the commission of offence and involvement of the charged persons. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. That being so, the interference at the threshold quashing the FIR is to be exceptional and not like routine as ordered by the High Court in the present case. It is not a case where it can be said that the complaint did not disclose commission of an offence. The acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial.” In the present cases also, the panchanamas, based on which the cases were registered, prima facie discloses the commission of alleged offences. The role of the petitioner/A-2 and the contribution on his part towards facilitating the commission of the offence and partaking thereof is yet to be investigated. When the investigation is at the threshold stage, the plea of petitioner/A-2 that he is only a vendor and nothing more, cannot be countenanced, especially in the light of the fact that he is shown to be supplying jaggery to a number of manufacturers of ID liquor. The fact that the earlier criminal petitions filed by the petitioner/A-2 were allowed quashing further proceedings in those cases does not by itself constitute a justifiable ground to quash further proceedings in these batch of cases also, when it is shown that the petitioner/A-2 is habituated to supply the jaggery to a number of manufacturers of ID liquor and thereby necessitating further investigation into the role of the petitioner/A-2 and establish the nexus, if any, between him and the manufacturers of ID liquor. 15. In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court and in the circumstances of the present cases, it is considered neither just nor expedient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and thwart further investigation by quashing further proceedings in pursuance of Cr.Nos.1100, 1288, 1218, 1327, 1097, 1108 of 2010-2010 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered against the petitioner/A-2. The observations made hereinabove may not be considered as expression of any opinion over the merits of the case and investigation shall be conducted independently without in any way being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 16. In the result, all the criminal petitions are dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2010 Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.Nos.10743, 10744, 10745, 10749, 10750 & 10751 OF 2010 Between:- Rajan Singh …Petitioner/A-2 A n d The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents