THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3561 OF 2008 DATED:15.07.2010 Between: Uppala Venkateswara Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3561 of 2008 ORDER: The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Tiruvuru, registered Crime No.315 of 2001-2002 under Section 34(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 on 08.03.2002. The allegation is that the petitioner was in possession of ten palm leaf bundles of black jaggery, each weighing 35 kgs. (total 350 kgs.) and one polythine hand bag containing five kgs. of patika. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, and he was remanded to judicial custody on 18.04.2002. In this petition, for quashing investigation into the crime, it is mainly contended that possession of black jaggery does not constitute an offence and, therefore, any investigation would be abuse of process of law. The question raised herein is squarely 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], wherein 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. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.07.2010 KH [1] 2002 (1) ALD 210 (FB)