IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2011 Between: Ashok Singh … Petitioner And Mr. Srinivas Reddy Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Sherilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Prohibition & Excise This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2011 ORDER:- This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 13.07.2010, in W.P.No.20922 of 2008. The petitioner is a trader in Black Jaggery and Alum. When the respondent and his subordinate staff were allegedly interfering with his business activity, he filed Writ Petition No.20922 of 2008. After considering the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents therein, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition by order, dated 13.07.2010, observing that mere sale of black jaggery and alum is not prohibited by law and that if there is evidence to show that the trader is involved in manufacture of I.D. liquor by using black jaggery and alum, the respondents are entitled to take appropriate action under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. This Court has taken note of the fact that a case was already registered, which is pending and accordingly permitted the respondents to proceed with the said case and take appropriate action according to law. A direction was, however, given that in the guise of pendency of the said case, the respondents shall not prevent the petitioner from selling the black jaggery and alum, unless there is evidence to show that the said material is intended for the purpose of manufacture of I.D. liquor. In the present contempt case, the petitioner pleaded that the respondent is purposely booking false cases against him on the basis of the alleged confessional statements of the accused to the effect that they have purchased the black jaggery from his shop. The petitioner has cited crime No.88/2011-12 as an instance in this regard. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this Court has not restrained the respondent from registering the cases. On the contrary, this Court has permitted the respondent to prevent the petitioner from selling the black jaggery and alum, if there is evidence to show that the said material is intended for the purpose of manufacture of I.D. liquor. Unless the criminal case, registered against the petitioner, ends in his clean acquittal and a finding is rendered that a false case has been registered against him, the respondent cannot be said to have committed violation of the order of this Court. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that registration of the case, referred to above, by the respondent constitutes contempt of the order of this Court. For the abovementioned reasons, the contempt case is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, contempt application No.589 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.08.2011 ES