IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16134 of 2004 Between: B.V.V.Venkata Chakrapani S/o. Veerabhadraiah R/o. Bhadrachalam Khamma District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Prohibition and Excise Station Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Warangal Division, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing 75 quintals of Block Jaggery in Crime No.353/2002-2003 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District as illegal and without jurisdiction, consequently direct the respondents to release the jaggery seized fromthe petitioner shop and godown in his favour. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16134 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner questions the action of the respondents in seizing 75 quintals of black jaggery in Cr.No.353/2002-03 , dated 04-09-2002, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act read with Section 7(A) of A.P.Prohibition Act and 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act read with Section 39 of A.P.Excise Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he is carrying on business in Kirana and Jaggery and other provisions in the name and style of M/s.B.V.V.Chakrapani Rice, Kirana and General Merchants at Indira Market Road, Bhadrachalam. While so, on 04-09-2002, the 1st respondent, basing on the confessional statement of one M.Balakrishna that he purchased black jaggery from the petitioner for manufacture of I.D. Liquor, visited his shop and seized 75 kgs. of black jaggery from his shop and godown. It is not in dispute that black jaggery is the material for manufacture of I.D. Liquor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased black jaggery of 200 bags each containing 50 kgs i.e., 10,000 kgs. of black jaggery, vide receipt, dated 03-09-2002 from the Agricultural Market Committee, Chittoor, for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and the same was transported under the way bill, dated 03-09-2002. It is stated that the black jaggery is not an excisable offence and it is not prohibited one either to purchase or possess or sale. He further submits that there is no basis whatsoever to believe the confessional statement of A-1 with regard to sale of black jaggery to the persons, who manufacture I.D.Liquor and, therefore, the seizure of the said black jaggery and prosecution launched against the petitioner in the said crime is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this court i n GANESH TRADERS (Kirana and General Merchants), DHERMAPURI, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR AND OTHERS[1], refused to quash criminal proceedings and also refused to declare that the seizure of black jaggery as illegal and arbitrary. I deem it appropriate to extract following paras of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench: “…… We may now summarise our discussion on the main question whether keeping or being in possession of black jaggery material for the purpose of manufacture of liquor is an offences under the Excise Act. (a) The provisions of the A.P.Excise Act including Sections 13(f) and 34(e) should be interpreted with reference to the objects of the Act and penal provisions dealing with excise offences should also receive broader interpretation having regard to the fact that the Excise Act is intended to achieve partially the objective of Article 47 of the Constitution of India; (b) Having regard to the provisions of Sections, 13, 34, 53 and 55 of the Excise Act, we must hold that if Commissioner, Collector, Police Officer or Excise Officer “has reason to believe” that black jaggery (material) is likely to be used for manufacture of ID liquor the same can be seized and persons can be arrested and subject to facts and circumstances of each case including any report of the chemical examiner a charge sheet can be filed under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act. (c) In a situation such as (a) and (b) above, if the circumstances so warrant the person/accused is entitled to approach under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek quashing of proceedings provided his case come within well settled principles for quashing F.I.R., charge sheet or criminal case. However, a Writ Petition in such an event at the stage of investigation is not permissible when there is prima facie material to show that black jaggery is not fit for human consumption and was intended for manufacture of ID liquor. (d) As held by the Supreme Court in NASU SHEIKKS Case (supra) if the F.I.R. shows the ingredients of offence under Section 34(e) read with Section 13(f) of the Excise Act, a person cannot be heard to say in High Court that he is carrying on business or transporting black jaggery either because he is an agriculturist or businessman. All such please are to be raised before appropriate criminal court…..” “…… In STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNAN (2000) 7 SCC 80 + AIR 2000 SC 2729, the Supreme Court observed that when the provisions of the Act are to be strictly complied with, generally a vehicle seized in connection with an offence should not be released. The Supreme Court deprecated the casual approach in quashing departmental orders rejecting release of vehicles under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was held: Generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the Act including the appellate authority from passing appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce, which, if not protected, is surely to affect mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any ……” Keeping in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, the Full Bench of this Court, the petitioners cannot be given any relief for release of either black jaggery or vehicle involved, but it is open for them to approach criminal court or the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as the case may be, for release of black jaggery. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that black jaggery was seized from the godown and shop of the petitioner, basing on the confessional statement of A-1, and in view of the above decision of the Full Bench, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to permit the petitioner to approach before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for release of the black jaggery. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for release of black jaggery, if the proceedings are still pending, and on his approach, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 14-07-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL} [1] 2002 (1) ALD 210 (FB)