Sai Surya General Stores v. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna

The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in Kirana and General Stores business. On 14.11.2004 the petitioner’s premises was inspected by the respondent. About 95 bags of black jaggery were found. A case, being Crime No.533 of 2004 was registered under Section 34(2) read with Sections 34(e) and 13(1)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, on the ground that the said jaggery is not fit for human consumption. Challenging the seizure of black jaggery, the present writ petition is filed. The question raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, to which I was a member, in Ganesh Traders, Dhermapuri, Karimnagar v [1] . After referring to various provisions of District Collector the A.P.Excise Act the Full Bench laid down principles of law as under. a) The provisions of the A.P.Excise Act including Sections 13(f) and 34(e) should be interpreted with reference to the objects of the Act and penal provisions dealing with excise offences should also receive broader interpretation having regard to the fact that the Excise Act is intended to achieve partially the objective of Article 47 of the Constitution of India; b) Having regard to the provisions of Sections 13, 34 and 53 and 55 of the Excise Act, we must hold that if Commissioner, Collector, Police Officer or Excise Officer “has reason to believe” that black jaggery manufacture of ID liquor the same can be seized and persons can be arrested and subject to facts and circumstances of each case including any report of the chemical examiner a charge sheet can be filed under Section 34(e) of the Excise Act. to be used (material) likely c) In a situation such as (a) and (b) above, if the circumstances so warrant the person/accused is entitled to approach under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek quashing of proceedings provided his case come within well settled principles for quashing F.I.R., charge sheet or criminal case.

However, a writ petition in such an event at the stage of investigation is not permissible when there is prima facie material to show that black jaggery is not fit for human consumption and was intended for manufacture of ID liquor, and d) As held by the Supreme Court in NASU SHEIKKS case (supra) if the F.I.R shows the ingredients of offence under Section 34(e) read with Section 13(f) of the Excise Act, a person cannot be heard to say in High Court that he is carrying on business or transporting black jaggery either because he is an agriculturist or businessman. All such pleas are to be raised before appropriate criminal Court. Following the same, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

31.10.2008 To 1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 2.2CCs to G.P for Prohibition and Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA} [1] 2002 (1) ALD 210 (FB)