The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.715 of 2011 Date: 29.07.2011 Between: M/s.Ramchander Laxminarayana Karva, Rep. by its Partner Harikishan Karva ..... Petitioner AND Mr.N.Mohan, Station House Officer, Proh.& Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Venkateswarlu for Sri K.Rajasekhar Counsel for Respondent: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of Order, dated 25-07-2011, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.14257 of 2003, by the respondent. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in jaggery. When Crime No.l368 of 2003-2004 was registered against it, following the seizure of 146 lumps of jaggery along with a vehicle bearing registration No.AP 23 T 5445, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) read with Section 8(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, and under Section 34 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the petitioner filed the afore-noted Writ Petition. This Court, while holding that mere sale of black jaggery does not constitute an offence and that unless it is found that the black jaggery was sold for the purpose of manufacturing Illicitly Distilled liquor (for short ‘the I.D.Liquor’), the petitioner’s business cannot be interfered with, allowed the said Writ Petition with the direction that the respondent shall not harass the petitioner so long as it carries on business in black jaggery and sells it to various customers. More than three years thereafter, the respondent along with his staff has seized the vehicle, from which the black jaggery was being unloaded in front of the petitioner- shop, and registered Crime No.1395 of 2010–11 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) read with 8 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, and Sections 34 (e), 13 (1) (p), 41 and 42 (c), 34 (2) and 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and arrested the petitioner on the allegation that they found one person by name Pavan Singh, manufacturing I.D.Liquor, who confessed that he purchased the raw material used therein, from the petitioner. Terming this action on the part of the respondent as constituting contempt, the petitioner filed the present Contempt case more than eight months thereafter. In my opinion, this Contempt Case is wholly misconceived. This Court never prevented the respondent or his subordinates from taking appropriate action, if and when the respondent is found indulging in sale of black jaggery for the purpose of manufacture of I.D.Liquor. In the guise of the Order passed in the Writ Petition, which is generic in nature, the petitioner cannot hold the Excise and Prohibition Department under the persistent threat of contempt. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not requires to be adjudicated by the competent Criminal Court in which the case is pending. The said issue cannot be prejudged in the present contempt Case. Unless it is made out after trial before the jurisdictional Magistrate that the registration of Criminal Case is frivolous or vexatious, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the Order of this Court. In the premises as above, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th July, 2011 LUR