IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.11.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.18928 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Murali ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by Inspector of Police Prohibition and Enforcement Wing Periyapalayam Tiruvallur District (Cr.No.184 of 2007) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.40 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttukottai and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D. Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. G. Prasanna Public Prosecutor O R D E R The petitioner/3rd accused has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttukottai, and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.184 of 2007, dated 04.08.2007 against the accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 272, 467, 472 of I.P.C. r/w 24, 24(A) (1) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On 04.08.2007, at about 22.00 hours, at TASMAC Wine Shop No.9066 in Periyapalayam Bazaar within the limits of PEW, Periyapalayam, the Periyapalayam Police Station Inspector inspected the TASMAC Wine Shop and found that the accused dishonestly selling and delivery the liquor bottles by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ altering the Government seals and keeping such goods for sale to the local public from the said shop. Further the accused person adulterated the Government liquor with seal by mixing with water and made as noxious liquor and intended to sell the same to the local public by storing at the TASMAC Shop No.9066. Further, this common intention was to commit forgery, as such the shop violated the terms and conditions of liquor sale. The respondent police found in possession of 41 bottles of Captain Rum, 44 bottles of Brandy, 17 bottles of Old Secret and all of these were mixed with water and being sold to the public. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd accused is a shop Supervisor working under TASMAC from December, 2003. On 04.08.2007, the respondent/Inspector of Police had arrested six accused persons on the allegation that all of the accused had been selling adulterating alcohol with noxious substance after tampering with the Government seal. The learned counsel further submitted that after obtaining a negative report from the Chemical Analyst, filed a charge sheet under Section 24(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, but the respondent police registered the case under various Sections, therefore the case is not prima facie against the accused. The learned counsel further argued that as per the allegation made by the prosecution that noxious liquor was being stored and sold by the accused, this fact was not reflected in the Chemical Analyst's report. The entire prosecution case is dependent on the Chemical Analyst's report which was adverse to the prosecution case therefore the prosecution case is not prima facie. Further there is no complaint from the consumers. Further the respondent police is not a competent authority to proceed with the prosecution case against the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the respondent/Inspector of Police, who is the competent Police Officer is attached to the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, therefore, the respondent initiated the case against the accused, this also, is one of the issues besides the chemical report. Now a charge sheet is filed against the accused person and the case is ready for trial to establish the same along with the seven witnesses. 5. After considering the prosecution case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that the veracity of the prosecution case could be determined after conducting the trial. Therefore, this Court is not able to discern the valid grounds in the order to quash the Criminal proceedings however, the case having been registered in the year 2007, the Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttukottai, to conduct an expeditious trial to dispose the case within a period https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar smn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Uttukottai. 2.Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur. 3. The Inspector of Police Prohibition and Enforcement Wing Periyapalayam Tiruvallur District (Cr.No.184 of 2007) 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 5.The S.O., Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.D.Ramesh, Advocate, SR.80417 Crl.O.P.No.18928 of 2008 mg(co) pmk.15.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/