IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14446 of 2009 Between: Pullaiah India, S/o. Venkat, R/o. H.No. 1-10, Somavaram, Wyra, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Khammam District. 2 The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Wyra, Khammam District. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Wyra Police Station, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.P.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash Crime No.55 of 2009 on the file of respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 20 Y 5132. On the intervening night of 14/15-04-2009, respondent No.3-Sub-Inspector of Police, Wyra Police Station, along with his staff, intercepted the above-mentioned auto and found that the same was carrying 5 cardboard boxes containing Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short ‘IMFL’) bottles and Beer bottles. The driver of the said auto is stated to have disclosed that Vempati Stalin, Son of Suryanarayana of Khammam, is running a hotel-cum-pan shop opposite Srinivasa Theatre at Wyra and that the said contraband belongs to him. The contraband along with the auto was seized under a Panchanama and Crime No.55 of 2009 was registered by respondent No.3 for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that he has nothing to do with the said offence, as the same was committed by the hirer of the auto, without his knowledge. He pleaded that he approached respondent No.1 for release of the seized auto, but no order has been passed so far. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, I do not find any reason to quash the Crime because the Police and Excise authorities have power and jurisdiction to seize the liquor, if the same was found in possession of the person or being transported, contrary to the statutory provisions and register a criminal case. The issue whether the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner or not is required to be decided in the Criminal case. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to interdict investigation into the Crime already registered. As regards the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to release the seized auto to the petitioner, the petitioner has neither disclosed the date, on which he filed the application for its release before respondent No.1 nor filed any copy of such application in the Writ Petition. Unless the petitioner, first approaches respondent No.1 with appropriate application in this regard, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, he cannot seek release of his auto. In any event, since more than three months have elapsed from the date of seizure of auto, I find no purpose in directing its release, when the confiscation proceedings could have already been initiated. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the confiscation proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.18944 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 20th July, 2009 lur