THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3924 OF 2010 DATED:01-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.1277/2009-10 of Prohibition & Excise station, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners are accused of the offences under Rule 27(1) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to sell Toddy conditions Licence and Tapping Excise Trees) Rules, 2007. Investigation is still pending. According to the prosecution, on 20-08-2009, at about 6.40 p.m. the enforcement officials inspected the toddy shop, tested the toddy and took three samples of 350 ml each under panchanama and the samples were sent for analysis and the chemical examiner gave a report to the effect that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with diazepam. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.24208 of 2009 seeking a direction to the Excise officials for re-analysis and this Court by order, dated 18-11-2009, directed the Station House Officer to send the other sample to independent laboratory i.e. State Food Laboratory. On re-analysis, it is found by the Chief Public Analyst of State Food Laboratory that diazepam was absent. The said report however states that the sample does not conform to the standards of alcoholic content, total acid as Tartaric acid and Volatile acid as acetic acid and hence it is adulterated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in view of the report of the second analyst to the effect that diazepam was absent, the earlier report of the chemical examiner loses its relevance and hence, no further proceedings can be continued against the petitioners. 5. Though the second report states that diazepam was absent, still the sample was found to be adulterated on account of its not being in conformity with the prescribed standards. As the investigation is still pending, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings in Cr.No.277/2009-10. However, the investigating officer shall take into consideration the second report issued by the State Food Laboratory into consideration before filing the charge sheet or filing final report, as the case may be. 6. Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above direction. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy