THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4978 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.32 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad (trial court). He filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the said case. The offence alleged against him is one punishable under Section 34(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short Act). 2. The prosecution version is that the petitioner is a businessman of Mahabubabad and that on 2.4.1995 in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. on credible information the Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad raided the shop of the petitioner and found him to be in possession of 50 quintals of black jaggery which is fit for manufacture of illicitly distilled arrack. It is also alleged in the charge sheet that at the time of seizure the petitioner is said to have made a disclosure before the Inspector of Police that he did not posses any way bills or other documents to show that he bought the black jaggery in a legal manner and that he bought the said jaggery from Chittoor for selling the same in the surrounding Tandas for manufacture of illicitly distilled arrack and to make huge profits. It is then stated that the above jaggery was accordingly seized and investigation was taken up and it disclosed that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 34(e) of the Act which deals with possession of materials for manufacture of illicit distilled liquor as black jaggery is a material for manufacture of illicit distilled liquor. 3. It should be noted that the case is of 2002 and this quash petition was filed in 2009. The main contention of Sri Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner is that mere possession or transportation of black jaggery is by itself is not an offence under the Act and since the investigating officer failed to place any additional material before the trial court to show that the petitioner is manufacturing illicitly distilled liquor with black jaggery or is acting an abettor for its manufacture the case should be quashed holding that it to be a baseless one. The Full Bench decision of this Court given in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar[1], and two decisions of the Supreme Court given in one given in State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy[2] and the other given in Crl.A.No.1252 of 2010 dated 15.7.2010 (State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh) are relevant here. 4. In Ganesh Traders’ case the majority opinion was that black jaggery cannot be permitted to be released under Article 226 when the matter is at the stage of F.I.R. and ultimately the petitioners therein were directed to approach the criminal court concerned. It was also held in the majority opinion that information in the form of analysis reports and other information have to be obtained by the investigating agency and consequently that was a ground for refusing the relief at the stage of F.I.R. Certain guidelines were given in the said case. Then in Golconda Linga Swamy’s case decided on 27.7.2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases relating to transporting or storing of black jaggery the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not interfere on flimsy grounds when the matters are at the stage of F.I.R. and investigation should be allowed to go on. 5. In the case of Gourishetty Mahesh which was also a case relating to possession of black jaggery, their Lordships dealing with the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reiterated the settled principles that an F.I.R. or a case can be quashed even if the allegations made therein are believed to be true they do not disclose any offence. With reference to the possession of black jaggery it was held as follows: “In the case on had, 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 ha 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 person. 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.” 6. The above observations are clear and they show that where there are specific allegations that possession of black jaggery is meant for preparation of illicitly distilled liquor, the Court should not interfere. Sri Prabhakar Rao’s contention is that in the present case charge sheet has been filed and yet there is no laboratory analysis report regarding the black jaggery in question showing that it is fit for preparation of illicitly distilled liquor and therefore the case should be quashed. It is true that in the above passage it has been mentioned that in addition to the specific allegations the prosecution also in that case relied upon the laboratory analysis report which mentioned that the jaggery therein was found to be fit for preparation of illicitly distilled liquor and therefore it was held that the controversy was to be considered at the time of trial. 7. It is true that the charge sheet does not show that the concerned investigating officer got the sample jaggery subjected to any chemical analysis. In the above passage of the Supreme Court decision the presence of analysis report was only made an added ground for not interfering but it was not the sole ground and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observations would show that even allegations showing that the jaggery was possessed for preparation of illicit distilled liquor were sufficient. What should be noted is that this is a case where the police investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet and specifically pleaded that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that he got the 50 quintals of black jaggery in accordance with the procedure prescribed for its transport from Chittoor. It is also pleaded that the investigation disclosed that the petitioner possessed it for selling it to Tandas nearby Mahabubabad where illicit distilled liquor is manufactured and the Inspector says that the jaggery is fit for preparation of illicit distilled liquor. Thus there are allegations in the charge sheet and the only deficiency is absence of chemical analysis report. 8. So far as absence of chemical analysis report is concerned, it is for the trial court to decide what is its effect on the merits of the case and it may also be noted it is open for the trial court to entertain evidence regarding the chemical analysis even in the course of trial by summoning any witness it likes or any report it may call for and it is a matter within the power of the trial court. Thus the mere absence of chemical analysis report is not a ground for quashing the case. The police have registered the case in the year 1995 and they filed the charge sheet in the year 2002 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2009. It is not known what the petitioner was doing previously from 1995 onwards. All the above circumstances, in my opinion, would show that this is not a case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it would be in the fitness of things to leave the matter to be decided by the trial court which can go through all the aspects thoroughly in an enquiry or trial. 9. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner can also apply for discharge before the trial court and any such application may be decided by it in accordance with law. The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the matter expeditiously without being influenced in any manner by any observations made in this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 30th December, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4978 OF 2009 30th December 2011 TJMR [1] 2002-ALD-1-210 [2] (2004)6 Supreme Court Cases 522