THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No :11136 of 2010 DATED:14-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.1563 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of Prohibition & Excise-cum-XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner-A2 along with four others is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) in C.C.No.1563 of 2009. According to the prosecution, on 14-05-2009, on receiving information about the illegal transportation of I.D.liquor on NH-7 the enforcement officials of the Prohibition & Excise department along with their staff and panch witnesses intercepted the vehicle- Tata Sumo bearing No.AP.29 G 2822 and seized six gunny bags containing 100 lts of I.D.liquor. It is stated that A1 was the driver of the vehicle and he revealed that A3 directed him to load I.D.liquor at Ramnuthala tanda from A4 and the same was being supplied to A5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no allegation is made against the petitioner-A2 in the charge sheet pertaining to any involvement in the commission of the offence and secondly, A2, as even by the date of the alleged offence, disposed of the vehicle to one Devender and A1 was not the driver of A2 on the date of the alleged offence. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that as on the date of the offence the vehicle remained in the name of A2 in the RTA records and transfer was not effected in favour of the said Devender. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner-A2 pertaining to the alleged offence, except mentioning that A2 was the owner of the vehicle. It is also not the case of the prosecution that A2 was in any way associated with the other accused or that A2 had knowledge of the transportation of I.D.liquor in the said vehicle or that he consented for the same. Even according to the prosecution, A1 was transporting the I.D. liquor as directed by A3 and the same was loaded from A4 at Ramnuthala tanda and it was being delivered to A5. Thus, the role of the petitioner-A2 in the whole process is nowhere referred to except stating that he was the owner of the vehicle. 7. In support of his plea that he has sold away the vehicle even before the date of the alleged offence, A2 filed delivery note-cum-Intermediater receipt, dated 06-04- 2009, issued by the Indian Motors, Auto Consultants & Travels, Hyderabad, which shows that the vehicle was transferred in favour of one Devender by A2. Petitioner also filed Form-24 issued by the RTA authorities to the effect that ‘no objection’ certificate was issued on 07-05- 2009 by the RTA. Of course, the transfer in favour of the purchaser was not recorded in the registers of the RTA authorities as on the date of the offence, i.e. on 14-05-2009, but the material placed on record by the petitioner would prove that the sale was also effected in favour of one Devender and the RTA authorities also issued ‘no objection’ certificate for the same. That apart, in the absence of any allegation in the charge sheet, prima facie, attracting the ingredients of the offence alleged as against A2, it is considered that the further proceedings in C.C.No.1563 of 2009 insofar as the petitioner-A2 is concerned are unsustainable. 8. In a decision reported in G.BHASKAR REDDY v. STATE OF A.P.[1], this Court in similar circumstances, held as follows: “It is no doubt true that on a careful reading of the charge sheet, the only allegation against the petitioner-A4is that he is the owner of the Tata Sumo in which the Rectified Spirit was transported. It is also no doubt true that there is no allegation that A1 had taken the vehicle with the permission of the owner or the same was done with the knowledge of the owner. It is no doubt true that under Section 34(a) of the Act aforesaid, the word or expression “transports” also had been incorporated. When no specific allegation as such was made as against the owner so as to attract the provisions of the Act, Section 34(a) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet filed as against the petitioner-A4 just on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle may not be sustainable. In the light of the same, the proceedings, so far as the petitioner-A4 are concerned, are hereby quashed” 9. In the present case also, the only allegation made against the petitioner-A2 in the charge sheet is that he is the owner of the vehicle and no other allegation is made and the material placed on record shows that by the date of the alleged offence, the said vehicle was also sold by the petitioner-A2. 10. Under those circumstances, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1563 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of Prohibition & Excise-cum-XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and they are accordingly quashed. 11. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 14th December, 2010. Tsy [1] 2006(1) ALD (CRL) 861 (AP)