THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.1061,1063,1066,1071,1084,1085 of 2008 Dt,1-7-2010 Crl.P.No.1061 of 2008 Jangam Blaram ..Petitioner V. 1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station, Gajwel, Medak Distinct and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.1061,1063,1066,1071,1084,1085 of 2008 COMMON ORDER Since in all the criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a challenge is made to the various crime and occurrence reports sent by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Gajwel to the Honourble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Since all the crime and occurrence reports contain similar facts, it is unnecessary to notice all of them except the one in Crl.P.No.1061/2008. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Gajwel sent a crime and occurrence report dt. 29-3-2003 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel stating that Prohibition and Excise Squad and Station House Officer, Gajwel Excise Station inspected the toddy shop No.2 at Angadi Bazar, Gajwel and tested the toddy with chemical and found the toddy is free from chloral hydrate and suspecting that it was contained diazepam, drawn three samples under a cover of panchanama and registered a case under Ruel 24 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and sent one sample bottle and case papers to the court for deposit and another sent to the Chemical Examiner’s Officer, Nizamabad through the court for analysis report through and further stated that further action would be taken after receiving chemical analysis report. These criminal petitions are filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner stating that though the first respondent sent occurrence reports as early as in the year 2003, due to political influence, the first respondent obtained non-bailable warrants from the Magistrate five years after the occurrence, which is an outrageous and oppressive abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the criminal petitions contends that though the crime was registered on 29-3-2003, the excise police have not taken any steps to arrest L. Balagoud, who was licensee of Angadi Bazar-shop No.2 till 2008, and in the year 2008, they have obtained NBWs under Section 51 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for short “the Act”) from the Magistrate. He further contends that the petitioner along with one Kothapalli Ramulu, as mentioned in Crl.P.No.1061/2008 and Panjala Lingam Goud, as mentioned in Crl.P.1066/2008, are evading arrest is absolutely false since Kothapalli Ramulu and Panjala Lingam Goud died on 27-6-2006 and 16-11-2003 respectively. Therefore, he prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. I do not see any merit in any of the contentions for the reason punishment for contravention in relation to possession of psychotropic substances depends upon the commercial quantity and if it is more than 50 grams, the punishment shall not be less than ten years but it may extend to twenty years. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel that NBWs should not be issued against the petitioner after five years of the occurrence report cannot be sustainable and it is accordingly rejected. It is further contended that the Magistrate is not competent to issue NBWs under Section 51 of the Act and the District Judge, who is designated under the Act, is competent to issue NBWs. In that view of the matter, it is always open for the petitioner to move the concerned criminal court, which issued NBWs, to recall NBWs on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to issue NBWs or to file a revision against the order issuing NBWs before the concerned Sessions Court. Once the excise officials are under obligation under the Excise Act to report the crime and deposit sample drawn along with crime report, the proceedings initiated cannot be quashed. It is not a fit case whether this court can scuttle the prosecution at the initial stage. All the criminal petitions are accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.1-7-2010 kmr