KALIDINDI RAMARAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is A-1 in C.C. No.141 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada. He along with another accused person i.e., A-2 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act and ultimately found both of them guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirmed the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to the complaint filed by the Excise Sub Inspector, Peddapuram, is that on 11-4-995 at about 3.30 p.m., the excise officials proceeded to the tiles factory under the occupation of the petitioner herein and found the petitioner therein. After serving the search proceedings, the excise officials entered into the mill along with the petitioner and found A-2 with some cardboard boxes. When questioned, A-2 informed them that he is the watchman working under the petitioner and the said cardboard boxes belong to the petitioner. When counted, the cardboard boxes numbered 104 and on opening them, they found in all 4,880 nips of Indian made liquor having company cap seals and labels with inscription as distilled and bottled at Kedianagar, Madhya Pradesh, "for sale in Madhya Pradesh only". Pursuant to that, the petitioner made a confession that he purchased the liquor bottles from an unknown person and that he does not have any licence or permit to possess them. Later, the bottles were seized by the excise police and after following the further procedure such as drafting the mediators report etc., the excise officials registered a case in Crime No.41/1993-94 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act and the petitioner and another were arrested and produced before the court for remand. Later, the samples were sent to analyst, who issued a report after analysis opining that they are Indian made liquor. After investigation, the complainant filed the complaint against the petitioner and another as aforesaid.

(3.) Pursuant to the court orders, the entire seized liquor was sold in public auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.1,04,800.00 was deposited into court.