THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2136 OF 2009 Date: 08.11.2011 Between: J.S.Rama Chandra Rao and others …..Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2136 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, counsel appearing for the petitioners’ counsel. There is no representation for the Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. All the four petitioners herein are shown as accused in Crime No.117 of 2009 of Law and Order II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District which has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Perused the copy of the mediators report on the basis of which the case has been registered. The mediators report shows that on 29.7.2009 at about 9.00 p.m. a Toyota Innova car in which the petitioners were travelling was intercepted by the above police and in the search carried out one bottle of Mansion House liquor of 750 ml., 2 bottles of Blenders Pride liquor of 750 ml. each and 24 bottles of some brand of beer were recovered from the car. The first petitioner is said to be the owner of the said vehicle. It is reported that all the petitioners have been arrested and were also granted bail by the concerned court. 3. The main contention of Sri Rajanikanth Reddy is that going by the terms of G.O.Ms.No.268, Revenue Ex.III, dated 1.4.1997, the quantity of liquor seized from the vehicle in question can be said to fall within the limits of the quantity prescribed in the above G.O. and as the said quantity can be possessed without any licence, the case should be quashed. This contention of Sri Rajanikanth Reddy no doubt apparently sounds forceful in case it is found that all the four occupants of the vehicle are found to be having equal shares in the liquor seized. Whether the car owner alone had possession of the seized liquor in question or whether the other three occupants of the car have also equal share in the liquor is a question of fact which has to be decided on evidence. Added to this, the petition itself shows that the first petitioner is in business while petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to be car drivers. The fourth petitioner is of-course also stated to be in business. Petitioners 2 to 4 are said to have been going with the first petitioner for enjoying a liquor party at the weekend. 4. It may be noted that, to repeat, the question whether the liquor in question belongs exclusively to the first petitioner in which case the licence is necessary for him to possess them or it belongs to all the petitioners each having equal shares in it is to be decided on evidence and the applicability or non-applicability of aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.268, Revenue Ex.III, dated 1.4.1997 depends upon the answer to the above question. In these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the contention of Sri Rajanikanth Reddy. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and it shall be open for the petitioners to raise their defence before the court below, in case if they are charge-sheeted. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 8th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2136 OF 2009 DATE: 08.11.2011