REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.       1252          OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3061 of 2008)

State of A.P.              .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  Leave granted.

2)  This appeal is preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh  

against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2006 passed  

by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature,  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 4362 of 2002 whereby  

the High Court allowed the petition filed u/s 482 of the  

Criminal  Procedure Code (hereinafter  referred to as ‘the  

Code’)  filed by the respondents herein and quashed the  

1

criminal  proceedings  in  Crime  No.  288/2002-03  of  

Prohibition  &  Excise  Station,  Huzurabad,  Karimnagar  

initiated against them.

3)  Brief facts:

a) On  12.09.2002,  at  about  4  p.m.,  on  information  

about transportation of black Jaggery and Alum illegally,  

SDP&E  along  with  other  officials  kept  a  watch  at  

Molangur Cross Road.  While conducting the route watch,  

an  Eicher  Van  bearing  Regn.  No.  AP  15  U  3123  was  

checked and the Investigating Officer found 5,040 kgs. of  

black  Jaggery  in  106  Gunny  Bags.   The  Investigating  

Officer seized the vehicle and the black Jaggery under the  

cover of Panchnama, arrested the accused and registered  

a case in Crime No. 288/2002-03 under Sections 34(e), 41  

and 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.  A show  

cause notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle and  

the  accused  persons.   On  21.09.2002,  the  Government  

chemical  examiner  gave  his  remarks  stating  that  the  

sample contains sugar and extraneous matter  and it  is  

2

Jaggery  fit  for  fermentation  producing  alcohol  unfit  for  

consumption.   

b) On  16.09.2002,  the  respondents/accused  persons  

preferred a petition before the High Court being Criminal  

Petition No. 4362 of 2002 along with Crl.M.P. No. 5639 of  

2002  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  to  quash  the  

proceedings in Crime No. 288/2002-03. On 17.09.2002,  

the High Court passed an order in Crl.M.P. No. 5639 of  

2002  in  Crl.  Pet.  No.  4362  of  2002  giving  the  interim  

custody  of  the  vehicle  bearing  No.  AP15U-3123  to  

Petitioner No.4 therein subject to certain conditions.  The  

Investigating Officer deposited the seized property in the  

office  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Prohibition  and  

Excise,  Karimnagar,  along  with  proposals  for  initiating  

action for confiscation of the black Jaggery.  The Deputy  

Commissioner, Karimnagar, issued a show cause notice to  

the owner of the contraband for confiscation of the seized  

property calling for objections, if any.  The owner of the  

vehicle submitted the explanation in response to the show  

3

cause notice.  The Deputy Commissioner, Karimnagar, by  

order  dated  24.01.2003  confiscated  the  contraband.  

Against the order of confiscation, an appeal being Crl. A.  

No.  4843/2003/CPE/D4  was  filed  before  the  

Commissioner  of  Prohibition  &  Excise,  A.P.   The  

Commissioner upheld the confiscation order passed by the  

Deputy Commissioner, Karimnagar.  Aggrieved by the said  

order,  the owner of the Jaggery filed W.P. No. 11647 of  

2004 along with W.P.M.P. No. 14808 of 2004 before the  

High  Court  for  the  release  of  the  seized  goods.   By  an  

interim order dated 09.07.2007 in W.P.M.P. No. 14808 of  

2004, the seized black Jaggery was released on furnishing  

Bank Guarantee by the petitioner therein to the value of  

the  seized  goods  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Dy.  

Commissioner Prohibition & Excise, Karimnagar (second  

respondent therein) but the same could not be done as the  

jaggery was already disposed of.  On 27.01.2006, the High  

Court  passed  an  order  in  Crl.  Pet.  No.  4362  of  2002  

allowing  the  criminal  petition  quashing  the  proceedings  

4

against the respondents/accused in Crime No. 288/2002-

03.   Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave.

4) There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents  

in spite of service of notice.  Heard Mrs. C.K. Sucharita,  

learned counsel appearing for the State of A.P.  

5) Mrs.  C.K.Sucharita,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  

the State, after taking us through the complaint and other  

materials, submitted that the High Court misdirected itself  

in quashing the proceedings against the respondents in  

the light of the seizure of 5,040 kgs of black Jaggery and  

the investigating agency having ample evidence to prove  

that it was transported for manufacture of illicit liquor.   

6) It  is not in dispute that on 12.09.2002 at about 4  

p.m. on information, the Excise officials of Prohibition and  

Excise Station, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District proceeded  

to Molangur cross road, stopped a van bearing No. AP-15-

U  3123  and  seized  5,040  kgs  of  black  Jaggery  in  106  

gunny bags from the van under the cover of panchanama.  

5

Among the other accused A-1 is the clerk of A-4 and A2  

and A3 are driver and cleaner of the van and A-4 is doing  

business in jaggery and other kirana (grocery) items.  It is  

the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  after  seizure  of  the  

vehicle,  the  sample  of  substance  had  been  sent  to  the  

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory for testing.  The Govt.  

Chemical Examiner gave the Laboratory Analysis Report  

(Annexure P-12) which reads as under:-

“PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH

C.E.No.10/02 LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

The sample (s)  of  substance received with correct  and  intact  from  Proh.  &  Excise  Inspector,  Station  Hazurabad  with  his  letter  Dis.No.   /02/P&E/HZD  dt.  21.09.2002 has been tested in the Laboratory with the  following results:

S.No. Description  of  the  sample

Percentage  of  proof  Spirit  of  Hydrometer  Strength  of  Alcohol

Remarks

1 2 3 4 10415 A  dark  brownish  

coloured substance in  a polythene cover kept  in  a  paper  cover  weighing (200) Grams. Cr.No.288/2002-03  of  Station Huzurabad. Test Conducted Test  for  Sugars:  Positive

The  sample  is  containing  sugar  and  extraneous  matter.   It  is  Jaggery  fit  for  fermentation  producing  alcohol  unfit  for  consumption

6

2. The unexpended portion of the sample (s) is returned in  securely sealed.  3. He  is  requested  to  depute  a  person  with  a  letter  of  authority  to  take  delivery  of  the  enclosures  from  the  Laboratory on any working day.  

Signature of Asst.     (K. Mahender Reddy)  Examiner   Govt. Chemical Examiner Dt. 21.09.2002            of Proh. & Excise Regl.

Proh. & Excise Laboratory  To  The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Huzurabad, Karimnagar Dist. Copy submitted to the Proh. And Excise Superintendent, Dist. Hyderabad.”

7) The remarks offered in (column 4) of the said report  

shows  that  the  seized  substance  is  Jaggery  fit  for  

fermentation producing alcohol unfit for consumption.  It  

is  also  relevant  that  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  

Prohibition  and  Excise,  Karimnagar  Division,  by  

proceedings  dated  24.01.2003,  after  finding  that  an  

offence under A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has been made out,  

seized the Jaggery involved in Crime No. PR 288/2002-03  

dated 12.09.2002 and confiscated to the Government of  

A.P.  The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner  

7

of Prohibition and Excise on 01.03.2004.  In the light of  

the factual details, learned counsel for the State submitted  

that it is not a case of no material at all for taking action  

under the  A.P.  Excise  Act  and the High Court  was not  

justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of  

the  Code  when  the  material  on  record  discloses  

commission  of  offence  under  the  A.P.  Excise  Act.   No  

doubt, before the High Court,  learned Public Prosecutor  

who  defended  the  Government  has  neither  placed  nor  

highlighted the above mentioned materials.   

8)  In a series of decisions, this Court has explained the  

power and jurisdiction of  the High Court  under Section  

482 of the Code.  Exercise of power under Section 482 of  

the  Code,  particularly,  in  a  case  of  this  nature  is  an  

exception  and  not  the  rule.   The  above  provision  only  

saves inherent  power which the Court  possessed before  

the enactment of the Code and does not confer any new  

powers on the High Court.   

8

9)   In  State of  A.P. vs.  Golconda Linga Swamy and  

Another,  (2004)  6  SCC  522,  while  considering  similar  

orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court under  

the A.P. Excise Act, this Court has held as under:  

“….It  envisages  three  circumstances  under  which  the  inherent  jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order  under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and  (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible  nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern  the  exercise  of  inherent  jurisdiction.  No  legislative  enactment  dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly  arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express  provisions  of  law  which  are  necessary  for  proper  discharge  of  functions  and  duties  imposed  upon  them by  law.  That  is  the  doctrine  which  finds  expression  in  the  section  which  merely  recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All  courts, whether civil  or criminal, possess in the absence of any  express  provision,  as  inherent  in  their  constitution,  all  such  powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in  course  of  administration  of  justice  on the  principle  quando  lex  aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non  potest (when the law gives a person anything, it  gives him that  without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the  section,  the  Court  does  not  function  as  a  court  of  appeal  or  revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has  to  be  exercised  sparingly,  carefully  and  with  caution  and  only  when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down  in the section itself. It is to be exercised  ex debito justitiae to do  real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone  courts  exist.  Authority  of  the  court  exists  for  advancement  of  justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to  produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It  would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action  which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.  In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any  proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts  to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings  would  otherwise  serve  the  ends  of  justice.  When  no  offence  is  disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of  fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible  to  look  into  the  materials  to  assess what  the  complainant  has  alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations  are accepted in toto.”

9

10) In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,  AIR 1960 SC 866  

=  1960  Cri  LJ  1239, this  Court  summarised  some  

categories of cases where inherent power can and should  

be exercised to quash the proceedings:  

“(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the  institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii)  where  the  allegations  in  the  first  information  report  or  complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do  not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii)  where the allegations constitute an offence,  but there is no  legal  evidence  adduced  or  the  evidence  adduced  clearly  or  manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

11) In  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh vs.  Bajjoori  

Kanthaiah and Another, (2009) 1 SCC 114, again when  

the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  quashed  similar  

complaint under the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition  

Act in an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, this  

Court  after  reiterating  the  principle  laid  down  in  R.P.  

Kapur’s case (supra) and State of Haryana vs.  Bhajan  

Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 = 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 held  

that the interference at the threshold is not warranted and  

set aside the order of the High Court quashing the FIR  

and permitted the prosecution to proceed with the trial.  

10

12) While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the  

Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon  

an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or  

not  or  whether  on  a  reasonable  appreciation  of  it  

accusation would not be sustained.  That is the function  

of the trial Judge/Court.  It is true that Court should be  

circumspect  and  judicious  in  exercising  discretion  and  

should  take  all  relevant  facts  and  circumstances  into  

consideration before issuing process, other wise, it would  

be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to  

unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.  At the  

same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over  

to an accused to short-circuit  a prosecution and brings  

about  its  closure  without  full-fledged  enquiry.   Though  

High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable  

offences  to  prevent  abuse  of  process  of  any  Court  or  

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should  

be exercised sparingly.  For example, where the allegations  

made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at  

11

their  face  value  and  accepted  in  their  entirety  do  not  

prima  facie constitute  any  offence  or  make  out  a  case  

against  the  accused  or  allegations  in  the  FIR  do  not  

disclose  a  cognizable  offence  or  do  not  disclose  

commission of any offence and make out a case against  

the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in  

any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Code  or  in  any  other  

enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated  

or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceeding  

is  maliciously  instituted  with  an  ulterior  motive  for  

wreaking vengeance on the  accused due to  private  and  

personal grudge, the High Court may step in.  Though the  

powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482  

are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its  

exercise.  The interference must be on sound principles  

and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a  

legitimate  prosecution.   We  make  it  clear  that  if  the  

allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the  

offence  of  which  cognizance  has  been  taken  by  the  

12

Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same  

in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.   

13) In the case on hand, apart from specific allegations  

about  the  transportation  of  Jaggery  for  preparation  of  

illicit distilled liquor, prosecution also placed reliance on  

laboratory  analysis  report  which  mentions  that  the  

transported  Jaggery  is  fit  for  fermentation,  producing  

alcohol  unfit  for  consumption.   In those circumstances,  

whether the raw material in existence would be sufficient  

for holding the accused persons concerned guilty or not  

has to be considered only at the time of trial.  Further, at  

the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether  

prima  facie case  has  been  made  out  showing  the  

commission  of  offence  and  involvement  of  the  charged  

persons.  It is immaterial whether the case is based on  

direct  or  circumstantial  evidence.   That  being  so,  the  

interference at  the  threshold  quashing the FIR is  to  be  

exceptional and not like routine as ordered by the High Court  

in the present case.  It is not a case where it can be said that  

13

the complaint did not disclose commission of an offence.  The  

acceptability  of  the  materials  to  fasten  culpability  on  the  

accused persons is a matter of trial.  

14) In  the  light  of  the  above  principles  and  the  materials  

placed by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the High Court  

was not justified in quashing the FIR in Crime No. 288/2002-

03 of Excise and Prohibition Station, Hazurabad, Karimnagar  

District, accordingly the impugned judgment of the High Court  

is set aside.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any  

opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  case  except  holding  that  

interference  by  the  High  Court  at  the  threshold  is  not  

warranted.    We  further  make  it  clear  that  it  is  for  the  

prosecution to establish its charge beyond reasonable doubt.  

With these observations, the State appeal is allowed.     

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)    

...…………………………………J.           (ANIL R. DAVE)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 15, 2010.          

14