IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.562 of 2005 Between: Sai Surya General Stores, rep.by its Proprietor Thota Buchhaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, R/o.9-74, 9th ward, Machinenipalem Road, Vatsavai, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seizing the black jaggary of the petitioner in Crime No.533/2005-2005 of respondent police station as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to release the black jaggary of the petitioner seized in the above crime and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.562 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in Kirana and General Stores business. On 14.11.2004 the petitioner’s premises was inspected by the respondent. About 95 bags of black jaggery were found. A case, being Crime No.533 of 2004 was registered under Section 34(2) read with Sections 34(e) and 13(1)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, on the ground that the said jaggery is not ﬁt for human consumption. Challenging the seizure of black jaggery, the present writ petition is filed. The question raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, to which I was a member, in Ganesh Traders, Dhermapuri, Karimnagar v District Collector[1]. After referring to various provisions of the A.P.Excise Act the Full Bench laid down principles of law as under. 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 and 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, and 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 pleas are to be raised before appropriate criminal Court. Following the same, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 31.10.2008 vs To 1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 2.2CCs to G.P for Prohibition and Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA} [1] 2002 (1) ALD 210 (FB)