Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 954
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Sri Balaji Traders - Appellant
Versus
Commr of Excise, A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-06-03
Headnote:
A.P. Excise Act, 1968 – Section 13 (1) (f) and 34 (e) and 53 and 55 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 – Section 18 (c) – Sake of convenience – A. P. Excise Act including Section 13 (e) and 34 (e) – Appellant – Facts and law arise in these two writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order – Filed by a proprietary concern by name Traders is filed by the proprietor himself by name M. Ram – respondents are almost common in both the writ petitions – Only distinguishing feature is that owner of the vehicle also figures as petitioner interests are common – For the sake of convenience – They are referred to as the petitioners – Petitioners are engaged in the business of trading in Molasses – They had the place of business at Hyderabad –Their business comprises of purchase of Molasses from various sugar factories and supplying the same to the purchasers of different categories –Held, Petitioners filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein, who are the officials of the Excise Department, in interfering with the business of the petitioners in Molasses, as illegal, arbitrary and prayed for a preventive relief –Writ petition was disposed of through order –Categorical observation was made therein that Molasses is neither on intoxicant nor intoxicating liquor, as defined under the Act –Contention as raised in these writ petitions was almost accepted –Relevant portion of the order reads as under :"6. Either under the A. P. Prohibition Act or A. P. Excise Act, 1968, molasses per se is neither an intoxicant nor an intoxicant drug – In the circumstances, the contentions urged by the respondent that powers are available under A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 to regulate and seize molasses merely because they might potentially be used for manufacturing of illicit liquor does not appear to be well founded – Writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
( 1 ) SIMILAR questions of facts and law arise in these two writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
( 2 ) W. P. No. 5083 of 2003 is filed by a proprietary concern by name Sri Balaji Traders. W. P. No. 7335 of 2003 is filed by the proprietor himself by name M. Ram. The respondents are almost common in both the writ petitions. The only distinguishing feature is that in W. P. No. 7335 of 2003, the owner of the vehicle also figures as petitioner No. 2. Their interests are common. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the petitioners .
( 3 ) THE petitioners are engaged in the business of trading in Molasses. They had the place of business at Hyderabad. Their business comprises of purchase of Molasses from various sugar factories and supplying the same to the purchasers of different categories.
( 4 ) ON 10-3-2003, the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Patancheru, intercepted a tanker bearing No. AP9u 465 engaged by the petitioners in transporting Molasses at the Rudraram, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district, on the ground that the Molasses being transported in the tanker was meant for supply to manufactures of illicit liquor at Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. The tanker was seized and Crime No. 177 of 202-03 of the said PS was registered. WP. No. 5083 of 2003 is filed challenging the seizure and the consequential proceedings.
( 5 ) ON 8-4-2003, another tanker bearing No. AP 10t 9505 engaged by the petitioners for transporting the Molasses was intercepted nearby Karshak Khandsari Sugar Mills, Chintakunta village of Medak district. On the same allegations, this tanker was also seized and Crime No. 1 of 2003-04 on the PS, Prohibition and Excise, Andole, Medak district, was registered. These proceedings are challenged in WP. No. 7335 of 2003. In both the cases, the violation alleged against the petitioners is under Section 13 (1) (f) and 34 (e) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short the Act ).
( 6 ) THE petitioners contend that Molasses is not an intoxicant and, as sch, the provisions of the Act do not apply to the same. As regards the allegation that Molasses was meant to be supplied to the manufacturers of illicit liquor, the petitioners contend that there is nothing on record, except the surmises and presumptions on the part of the respondents that the Molasses were intended to be supplied to the manufacturers of illicit liquor.
( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is alleged that the petitioners were found to have supplied Molasses to several manufacturers of illicit liquor at Dhoolpet and it was in that context that the seizure was effected. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the Act is concerned, they contend that, being a material used in manufacture of illicit liquor, the action is very much sustainable under Section 13 (1) (f) and 34 (e) of the Act.
( 8 ) SRI Milind Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there are no restrictions on possession, transport and trade in Molasses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According t him, the petitioners are supplying the Molasses to various customers for industrial purposes and there was nothing to suggest that the consignment in question was meant to be supplied for illicit purposes. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise v. Balaji Traders, W. A. No. 2209 of 1998 and batch dated 8-5-2001, he submits that as long as the A. P. State Legislature has not enacted any law on the subject, it was not competent for the excise officials to interfere with the trade in Molasses.
( 9 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Excise, on the other hand, submits that though the Government of India has rescinded the Molasses Control Order, the petitioners cannot be permitted to supply the same for the purpose of manufacture of illicit liquor. Referring to the instances of the petitioners having been found supplying Molasses to such pur
