PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. NANDA KUMAR KALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal by the State is whether a licence is necessary under section 21(1) (f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act and the Rules made thereunder for carrying en liquor business in twin cities, inspite of a licence granted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

(2.) Sambasiva Rao, J as he then was, in Criminal Misc.Petition No.872 of 1977 by his order dated 1-8-1977 held that when once the Commissioner of Excise has licensed the premises and if a person carries on liquor business accordingly, there is no offence within the meaning of section (21)(1) (f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act and that in fact no licence is necessary under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act. When the present appeal came up before Madhusudan Rao, J he found himself unable to agree with this view and accordingly referred the case to a Division Bench, and that is how it came up before us.

(3.) At the out set the facts that gave rise to this appeal may briefly be stated. The respondent is a partner of the firm R.K. Wines, Himayat- nagar, Hyderabad. He applied for a fresh licence to the Commissioner of Police for sale of liquor. The Commissioner of Police instructed him to submit certain documents and a copy of the Commissioner's memo was also marked to the Inspector of Police Narayanaguda. A report also was submitted by the Sub inspector of Police to the Commissioner of Police that the respondent was carrying on business. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Police ordered to prosecute the respondent from the date of commencement of the business. Accordingly the Sub-Inspector, Narayanaguda Police station visited the respondent's shop and found the respondent running the business without a licence from the Commissioner of Police. Charge sheets under section 21 read with Sec. 76 of the City Police Act, were filed alleging that the respondent was carrying on business without licence from the Commissioner of Police. The same were registered as Summary Trial Cases Nos. 2734 to 1821 of 1979 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The learned Magistrate relying on the decision of Sambasiva Rao, J in Crl M.P. 872 of 1977 held that the respondent had a valid licence issued by the Excise Department and is doing business in the same place as per the Excise licence and therefore in view of the decision of the High Court in Crl.M.P.872 of 1977 he cannot be found guilty of the offence under section 21 read with section 76 of the Hyderabad City Police Ac', and accordingly acquitted him.