Full Judgment Text
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
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.