31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

DY.COMMNR. OF PROHIBITION & EXCISE &ANR. Vs M/S. BALAJI CATTLE FEEDS

Bench: S.N. VARIAVA,ARIJIT PASAYAT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001182-001182 / 2003
Diary number: 2726 / 2003
Advocates: Vs K. K. MANI


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1182 of 2003

PETITIONER: Dy.Comm. of Prohibition & Excise, Nizd.,A.P & Anr.

RESPONDENT: M/s Balaji Cattle Feeds and Anr.                         

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004

BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

       The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of  learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing the  writ petition filed by the respondents.  By the impugned judgment it  was held that the proceedings initiated against the respondents in  seizing molasses along with tanker while in transit and confiscating  the same is without any authority of law.  The High Court accepted the  plea that there was no material to show that the seized articles were  intended to be used for manufacturing of rectified spirit.   

        In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the  State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the High Court’s approach is  clearly erroneous.  This was not a case where there was no material to  show the commission of alleged crime.  Whether there was adequate  material already in existence or which could have been collected during  investigation and their relevance is essentially a matter of trial.

       Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted  that on mere surmises and conjectures that the molasses being  transported was intended to be used for the purpose of manufacturing  illicit distilled liquor. Suspicion however strong cannot be a ground  to initiate criminal proceedings thereby unnecessarily harassing the  innocent transporters.  It was further pointed out that the High Court  has merely directed release of the tanker as well as the molasses and  criminal proceedings have not been quashed.   

       Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in a  batch of cases, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swamy and  Anr. (2004 AIR SCW 4329). In those cases FIRs. filed were quashed by  exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  1973 (in short the ’Code’). This Court set aside High Court’s judgment.   In the present case, like the aforesaid batch of cases, the statement  of the driver of the vehicle and the Panchnama show that there was some  material to proceed against the respondents.    Obviously, the  acceptability of the materials to fasten guilt on the accused is a  matter of trial.  This cannot be said to be a case where commission of  offence was not disclosed.

       Stand of the learned counsel for the respondents-accused that the  prayer in the writ petition was for release of the vehicle and the  seized articles is clearly untenable.  In fact, the High Court has  clearly noted that the prayer was to quash the entire proceedings and

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

additionally for release of the seized tanker and the articles. By the  impugned judgment, the High Court has quashed the entire proceedings  and has consequently directed release of the seized tanker and the  molasses.  The operative part of the High Court’s order reads as  follows:

"In view of the same, entire proceedings initiated  by the respondents-authorities in seizing the molasses  along with tanker while in transit and confiscating the  same is without any authority or law and the same is  accordingly set-aside.  Consequently, the respondents are  directed to release the tanker as well as molasses, which  was seized pursuant to the registration of Cr. No.  132/2002-2003 dated 30-8-2002 by the S.H.O. Zaheerabad."

Since the proceedings were held to be without authority of law,  consequentially direction for release was given. No other reason has  been given for directing release. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the  entire proceedings. That being so, the direction for release of the  tanker and the seized articles cannot be sustained. The proceedings  shall revive and continue in accordance with law.  Whether the  materials already on record and to be collected during investigation  would substantiate the accusation is a matter of trial.   

       Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an application  shall be filed before the concerned Court for release of truck and the  seized molasses. If such application is filed, the same shall be  considered in accordance with law.          The appeal is allowed.