Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 252
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR
Pasupula Tappers Co-op. - Appellant
Versus
Prohibition and Excise Suptd., Kurnool Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 03-29-96
In cases involving the cancellation of a licence for selling adulterated toddy, the authorities must strictly comply with the relevant rules and procedures, including producing the analysis report of the Chemical Examiner and affidavits of the panchas who witnessed the seizure of the toddy samples.
Headnote:
EXCISE - A. P. EXCISE ACT, 1968 - SECTION 31 (1) (B) AND (2) - A. P. EXCISE (TAPPING OF TREES AND TODDY SHOPS SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF LICENCES) RULES, 1969 - RULE 5 - A. P. EXCISE (ARRACK AND TODDY LICENCES GENERAL CONDITIONS) RULES, 1969 - RULE (II) - A. P. EXCISE CHLORAL HYDRATE RULES, 1973 - RULE 19 - ADULTERATION OF TODDY WITH CHLORAL HYDRATE - CANCELLATION OF LICENCE - VALIDITY - NECESSITY OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES AND PROCEDURES - BURDEN OF PROOF ON AUTHORITIES - ANALYSIS REPORT AND AFFIDAVITS OF PANCHAS REQUIRED - LACK OF EVIDENCE OF ADULTERATION - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a toddy shop licencee, was accused of selling toddy adulterated with chloral hydrate. The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent cancelled the petitioner's licence under Section 31 (1) (b) and (2) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, for breach of licence conditions and Rules. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order, arguing that the authorities failed to prove that the toddy was adulterated.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the authorities failed to produce the analysis report of the Chemical Examiner and affidavits of the panchas who witnessed the seizure of the toddy samples. The Court held that these documents were necessary to establish that the samples were properly drawn and seized, and that they were not tampered with during the intervening period.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was justified in disowning the presence of Anjaneyulu at the petitioner's shop so as to save the Society from the responsibility arising from selling adulterated toddy? 2. Whether there was sufficient material on the record of the case to derive satisfaction that toddy seized from the shop was adulterated?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the burden of proof was on the authorities to establish that the toddy was adulterated. The Court further held that the authorities failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 19 of the A. P. Excise Chloral Hydrate Rules, 1973, which requires the licencee to allow any Officer duly empowered by the Commissioner to take samples of any of the goods he is licenced to deal in for analysis.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's licence. The Court, however, clarified that the respondents were at liberty to reopen and re-examine the case against the petitioner-Society if and when any findings were recorded by the Court in the case against the accused, who had been prosecuted, to say whether the sample of toddy was adulterated.
( 2 ) IT is alleged against the petitioner-Society that on 20-3-95 at about 11 -00 A. M. when the Prohibition and Excise inspector, Sub-Divisional Task Force, kurnool along with his staff and panchayatdars inspected the petitioner s toddy shop at Pasupula (V) and found one ediga Anjaneyulu selling toddy. He confessed that toddy was being supplied daily from Nandanapalii Depot and shop licence and inspection book were in nandanapalii Depot. On physical verification, the inspection party found two wooden crates with 48 toddy bottles. The officers took three samples of toddy under the cover of panchanama. During the spot test, it was found that toddy was mixed with chloral hydrate. The Prohibition and Excise sub- Inspector deposited the sample bottles in the Court of the I Additional Munsif magistrate, Kurnool, and one of the sample bottles was sent to the Government chemical Examiner for Excise, Kurnool, for analysis. It is further alleged against the petitioner that the Chemical Examiner opined that the toddy sample sent to him for analysis was mixed with chloral hydrate.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader submitted that adulteration of toddy with chloral hydrate was injurious to public health and a number of deaths due to the consumption of such toddy had been reported in the past. He further submitted that consumption of adulterated toddy with chloral hydrate made one addicted to such toddy, and its consumption cuased total breakdown of human nervous system, and ultimately resulting in deaths or resulting in psychological and social disorders, and therefore, according to him selling of such adulterated toddy was not only an offence against public, but also a social offence,
( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader further submitted that such adulteration of toddy was violative of Rule 5 of the A. P. Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy Shops special Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1969 and Rule (ii) of the A. P. Excise (Arrack and toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, and therefore, the licence of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled as per section 31, Clause (1) (b) and (2) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 for breach of licence conditions and Rules besides the penalty prescribed under Section 37 (a) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968. He further submitted that as per Rule 38 (2) of A. P. Excise (Arrack and toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 as amended through G. O. Ms. No. 774, revenue (Excise-II), dated 31-8-1991, the licencee was called upon to show cause vide show cause notice dated 19-6-1995, within seven days from the receipt of that notice, why the licence of toddy shop at Pasupula (V) bearing No. 1/92-97 granted in favour of ediga Ramanna, T. C. S. President, for the period from 1-10-1992 to 30-9-1997, should not be cancelled for the remaining part of the lease period under Section 31 (1) (b) and (2) of the A. P. Excise Act, I968.
( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted his application to the said show cause notice on 26-6-1995. The main contention raiseo in the explanation was that Anjaneyulu Goud, who was allegedly found selling toddy in the shop when the raid was conducted by the prohibition and Excise Inspector had no connection whatsoever with the petitioner-Society, and that the Excise officials should have subsequently gone to nandanapally and should have inspected the shop there if the raiding party believed that the Society was getting toddy from nandanapally Depot, as stated allegedly by anjaneyulu Goud. It was further stated in the explanation that there was no evidence as to who this alleged Anjaneyulu Goud was, and how he was connected with the Society, and that he was n
