D DAMODARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in these petitions are different persons. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 is the accused in C.C. No. 105 of 1971 on the ale of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram and the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972 is the accused in C.C. No. 88 of 1971 on the file of the same Magistrate. The prayer in both these petitions is to quash the proceedings on the ground that the facts alleged in the charge-sheet even if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out the offences as stated by the prosecution. The facts relevant for purposes of these petitions are that the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 is one of the accused in C.C. No. 105 of 1971. He is a resident of Hyderabad and proprietor of Dosani Chemical Industries, Hyderabad, a concern which is engaged in the manufacture of chloroform. The other accused in the case are the lorry driver and the cleaner of the lorry No. A.P.V. 5560. The petitioner is the holder of a permit to purchase and transport rectified spirit at 2000 litres per month for the months of January to March, 1970 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad. The 1st accused was to obtain supply of rectified spirit from Rama Sugars Ltd., Bobbili and transport the same to the premises of his industry at Bandalaguda Village, Hyderabad. The petitioner was given a licence and a permit for the purpose. He has committed breach of condition No. 8 of the said permit by breaking open the bulk of the consignment of the rectified spirit obtained from the suppliers on his way to Hyderabad and unloaded ten drums of rectified spirit in the house rented by the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1572. Consequently, the prosecution laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1821 of 1571 under Sec. 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972 under Sec. 34 (a) of the same Act for having acquired and kept in possession rectified spirit without a licence or permit,

(2.) Mr. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned Advocate for the petitioners in these petitions contends that even if the facts stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be correct at their face value, they do not make, out an offence under the relevant provisions mentioned above. He contends that a perusal of the permit would show that it was granted under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F. The charge-sheet also discloses that the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 had contravened the provisions of Condition No. 8 of the said permit and rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964. It is his contention that the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act came into force in 1968 and before that date only the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., was in force, and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 were framed under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., which do not extend to the Andhra area. Hence he submits that having regard to the provisions of Sec. 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 no offence is made out. I cannot accede to any of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate. It is to be noted that before the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., was in force only in the area known as Telangana area. The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act received the assent of the President on 26/8/1968. Initially this Act was made applicable only to the Telangana area. Later, however, on 11/10/1969 by G.O. Ms. No. 989, Revenue, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act were extended to the Andhra area as well. Thus it will be seen that the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was made applicable to the Andhra area before the date of the offence i.e., 27/2/1970. Sub-seccion (1) of Sec. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 which deals with the regulations of transport of intoxicants provides:

(3.) 'Intoxicant' has been defined in Sec. 2 (19) of the said Act to mean any liquor as defined in clause (21) and clause (21) defines 'liquor' so as to include rectified spirits. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 14 of the Act provides that the Government may by notification, specify the maximum quantity of any intoxicant which a person may have in his possession and under sub-sec. (2) no person shall have in his possession any intoxicant in excess of the quantity specified under sub-sec. (1) except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of (a) a licence for the manufacture, cultivation, collection, sale, buying or supply of such article, or (b) a permit. Sec. 34 of the Act provides for penalties for illegal import, and the relevant portion of Sec. 36 which deals with penalty for misconduct of licensees reads as follows: