IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14453 of 2009 Between: Moduge Prasad S/o.Yesu R/o.Dachepuram, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Khammam District. 2 The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Wyra, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.P.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash Crime No.710/08-09 on the file of respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of TVS XL 50 Moped bearing registration No.NIL (Engine No.0D1GB1565062). On 11-12-2008 at 3.50 p.m., respondent No.2-Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Wyra Police Station, along with his staff, intercepted the above- mentioned two-wheeler and found that the same was carrying on a bag containing 10 polythene covers filled with 50 liters of ID Liquor. The petitioner is stated to have disclosed that on the said date, while returning from a function, he gave lift to an old man, who, after seeing the Excise Police, ran away by leaving the polythene covers, which he was carrying and that the said contraband belongs to him. The contraband along with the two-wheeler was seized under a Panchanama and Crime No.710/08-09 was registered by respondent No.2 for offence under Section 7 (a) read with Section 8 (e) of Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that he has nothing to do with the said offence, as the same was committed by the old man without his knowledge and that he merely gave lift to the said old man on humanitarian grounds. He pleaded that he approached respondent No.1 for release of the seized two-wheeler, but no order has been passed so far. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, I do not find any reason to quash the Crime because the Police and Excise authorities have power and jurisdiction to seize the liquor, if the same was found in possession of the person or being transported, contrary to the statutory provisions and register a Criminal Case. The issue whether the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner or not is required to be decided in the Criminal case. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to interdict investigation into the Crime already registered. As regards the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to release the seized two-wheeler to the petitioner, the petitioner has neither disclosed the date, on which he filed the application for its release before respondent No.1 nor filed any copy of such application in the Writ Petition. Unless the petitioner, first approaches respondent No.1 with appropriate application in this regard, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, he cannot seek release of his two- wheeler. In any event, since more than three months have elapsed from the date of seizure of two-wheeler, I find no purpose in directing its release, when the confiscation proceedings would have already been initiated. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the confiscation proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.18951 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 20th July, 2009 lur