G BHASKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Praveen kumar, Counsel representing the petitioner/A-4 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that even if the language of Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act 1968 and also Rule 3 of A.P. Rectified Spirit Rules 1971 are to be taken into consideration, as far as the petitioner/A-4 is concerned, he has nothing to do with any of those offences for the reason that except making an allegation that the petitioner is the owner of the Tata Sumo in which the Rectified Spirit was transported, there is no other allegation in relation to the petitioner/A-4. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the allegation made in the charge sheet in detail.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that this is a matter which may have to be gone into at the stage of trial for the reason that the vehicle of the petitioner/A-4 alone had been used for the transport and hence prima facie Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 is attracted.