THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 19-10-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 491 OF 2010 Between: M. Surender Reddy ... APPELLANT AND The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad and two others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 491 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Liquor stored in the premises other than the one for which licence was granted resulted in registration of a case against the appellant, writ petitioner – licensee which came to be compounded on his request, yet, a writ petition on the ground that the Commissioner could not have directed the appellant to pay the value of the stock seized. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition because the power vested in the Commissioner under Section 47 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) stands upheld by the Division Bench in V. Sreenivas Reddy vs. Commissioner of Excise and another[1]. Much emphasis was laid on sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act to contend that it could be either the sum of money or the value and not both. To appreciate the contention, appropriate is to extract sub-section (2) of Section 47: “On payment by the person, the sum of money or the value or both, as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A such person, if in custody shall be set at liberty, and all the property seized may be released and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such person in any Criminal Court. The acceptance of compensation shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal and in no case any further proceedings be taken against such person or property with reference to same act.” It is manifest from the provision aforementioned that the Commissioner has the power to ask for payment of the sum of money or the value or both. In the case on hand, for the reasons detailed in the impugned order, the Commissioner has allowed the release on payment of sum as also value and examining the order in the light of the statutory power, we find no cause to interfere. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 19-10-2010 K. Shyleshi [1] 1997 (6) ALT 696