SUNKARI SAMBAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition filed by the writ petitioners seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered against them under Sections 34(a) and 36 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'), was dismissed by the learned single Judge, hence this appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 claims that he is a license holder of retail shop under A.4 category, which was valid up to 30.06.2012. Petitioner No. 1 also has godown license, where he stores the liquor, which is also valid till 30.06.2012. Similar to the petitioner No. 1, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are also licensees under A-4 category. It is alleged that on 24.05.2012, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mahbubabad Rural along with his staff raided the godown of the petitioner No. 1 and found that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who do not hold any license to store, had allegedly stored their liquor bottles in the petitioner No. 1's godown. It was also further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 had also stored Kingfisher beer boxes illegally. While a crime was registered under F.I.R. No. 82 of 2012 on 24.05.2012 before Kesamudram police station, Warrangal District, petitioners question the said registration of F.I.R. primarily on the ground that the police officer, who raided the godown of the petitioner No. 1, has no authority under Section 52 of the A.P. Excise Act. It is submitted that under the said provision a police officer, who is specifically empowered, alone is competent and the said Circle Inspector not being an empowered officer, to search and register crime against the petitioners, hence the aforesaid F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings is not a bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the learned single Judge did not accept the said contention by holding that only in rarest of rare cases where the malafides are attributed to the police officer, the writ Court would entertain the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, otherwise there is an effective alternative remedy available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, learned single Judge examined the petitioners' contentions on merits. Learned single Judge held that by virtue of Section 55, it cannot be said that the Circle Inspector, who searched and registered the offence against the petitioners, was incompetent, consequently dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy under law. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid order.