HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9923 AND 9928 OF 2010 Date: 07-10-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9923 OF 2010 Between: Gunipati Ramaiah. --- Petitioner/A-4. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. --- Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9928 OF 2010 Between: Gunipati Ramaiah. --- Petitioner/A-7. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9923 AND 9928 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since in both the Criminal Petitions, petitioner/accused is one and the same person and the questions, which are required to be considered for disposal of these two petitions, are also one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Criminal Petition No.9923 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner/A-4 and Criminal Petition No.9928 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner/A-7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.65 of 2010 and C.C. No.66 of 2010 respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, Kadapa District (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Magistrate’). Heard Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A-4 and A-7 in both the cases and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. Both the cases have been field by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Sidhout, Kadapa District, alleging that he inspected Tata Sumo vehicles of the petitioner bearing registration Nos.AP-04-W-4742 and AP-04-W-4572 and found therein some non-duty paid liquor bottles and apart from the petitioner, some other accused have been charge-sheeted for the alleged commission of offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, R/w Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that six vehicles were permitted during the course of previous General Assembly Elections, wherein, the petitioner was a contesting candidate on behalf of Prajarajyam party for Rajampet Assembly Constituency and keeping in mind that this petitioner was a contesting candidate, his political rivals by influencing the Excise Officials got implicated him in these two cases. The learned senior counsel also submits that except the allegation that both the vehicles belong to the petitioner, there is no material showing that the liquor bottles were carried either at the instance of or with the knowledge of the petitioner. It has also been further contended by the learned senior counsel that the informant in both the cases is also the investigating officer and further the charge sheet in both the cases were filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore no cognizance can be taken. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment in Podduturi Satyam Reddy Vs. State of A.P.[1] wherein this Court held that where the informant/complainant himself took up the investigation and files a charge sheet, certainly, it is an infirmity in the case if there is no other evidence against the petitioner and if there is no other evidence of any independent witnesses and the infirmity in the case certainly reflects on the credibility of the investigation done in the matter. The learned counsel relied upon another judgment in Kondakkagiri Kesava Reddy Vs. State of A.P.[2] wherein, in a similar case, Division Bench of this Court held that the commission of offence was detected on 31-03-1989 and charge sheet was filed on 19-12-1994 i.e., 5 years 8 months after the date of alleged offence. The sentence for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the Excise Act, being only six months, for such offence the time for filing charge sheet is one year from the date of the alleged offence and accordingly, Division Bench of this Court held that the charge sheet is barred by limitation and accordingly, the Criminal Proceedings are quashed by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case also, the alleged commission of offence was on 16-04-2009 and 18-04-2009 and charge sheet in both the cases has been filed on 19-07-2010 i.e., beyond the period of one year. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in the decision second referred above, charge sheets in both the cases have been filed beyond the period of limitation and there is a bar against the Court in taking cognizance of the offences. Moreover, except mentioning in the charge sheet that both the vehicles belong to the petitioner, no other evidence has been gathered by the investigating agency to establish that at least the petitioner had knowledge about the transport of liquor bottles in his vehicles. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was traveling in any of the vehicle during that time. Therefore, if the trial is proceeded in the two cases, there is no possibility for the cases to be ended in conviction. In such an event, the arrival of any finding in the matter is a futile exercise and it will also amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, entire proceedings in C.C. No.65 of 2010 and C.C. No.66 of 2010, on the file learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, Kadapa District, are hereby quashed. Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly, allowed. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 07-10-2010 Dsh. [1] 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 66 [2] 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 141 (DB)