SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(AP) 133

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO
Vazinepalli Ramagopalam - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 07-27-71

The court emphasized the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 to the 'camphorated Opium Tincture' and the importance of availing oneself of the remedies provided under the Act.

Headnote:

Excise Act - Medicinal and Toilet Preparations - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, stating that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 applied to the 'camphorated Opium Tincture' and the petitioner had not availed himself of the remedies provided under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased 'camphorated Opium Tincture' from a company and transported it to his godowns. The tincture was seized by the authorities, and the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 to the tincture.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 applied to the tincture and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was advised to avail himself of the remedies provided under the Act.

Issues: The applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 to 'camphorated Opium Tincture' and the petitioner's failure to avail himself of the remedies provided under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 applied to the tincture and that the petitioner had not utilized the remedies available under the Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court advised the petitioner to either appeal under Section 63 of the Act or apply to the appropriate authority for the return of the seized tincture.

A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IT is said that the Spencer and Co , Ltd. , Madras prepared a medicinal compound by the name "camphorated Opium Tincture" under a licence secured under the provisions of the Medicinal and toilet Preparation Act of 1955 which is a Central Act, The petitioner has a medical stores at Amaravati in Guntur District. He purchased some quantities of tincture from the Spencer and Co. , Ltd: madras and transported the same to his godowns at Amaravatl At mid-night on 2-1-1971, respondent NOS. 2 to 4 raided his godowns and seized 1059 bottles of the tincture and also arrested the petitioner. Thereupon the present writ petition has been filed for declaring that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 under which the above acts of raid and seizure have been made, do not apply to "comphorated Opium Tincture" manufactured by the spencer and Co , Ltd. , Madras, and to issue a consequential writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver to the petitioner the said 059 bottles of the tincture seized from him and restraining the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to deal in such tincture.

( 2 ) IN the first place, Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Sees. 11 and 12 of the Andhra pradesh Excise Act 1969 are ultra vires the powers of the State legislature. If those two sections are unconstitutional and invalid, they cannot be enforced and, consequently the action taken by the respondents would be totally invalid and illegal. S. 11 of that Act purports to regulate transport of intoxicants and it says.

( 3 ) THE Government may, by notification, prohibit the transport of an intoxicant or any kind of intoxicants from any area into any other area within the State except under a permit issued under section 12". Section 12 provides for the manner in which such permits should be issued. Item 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the constitution empowers the State Legislatures to make laws in regard to"intoxicating Liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicaing liquors". It is thus obvious that the State Legislature is empowered to legislate in regard to the transport of intoxicating liquors also. Therefore, it cannot he doubted that sections 11 and 12 of the said Act are clearly within the ambit of the State Legislature s power to legislate. This argument would, therefore, fail.

( 4 ) IT is next argued that though the State Government issued a memorandum dated 20-11-1969 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Excise Act prohibiting the transport of certain intoxicants from one area into another within the State except under a permit issued under Section 12 of the Art. a later memorandum of 21-1-1971 has exempted the medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured under the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 from the operation of the earlier notification of 20-11-1969 The learned counsel, therefore, argues that in view of this exemption, the petitioner was free to transport "camphorated Opium Tincture" which was prepared under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 without a permit. But this argument forgets the crucial fact that the seizure of the bottles of this tincture was made on 2-1-1971 i. e 19 days before this exemption was given. When the transport of the said tincture was made by the petitioner to Amaravati and when the raid and seizure were effected by the respondents, there was no exemption, and transport of the tincture without a permit was prohibited. Therefore, as on the day on which the impugned acts were performed, I do not see any illegality about them.

( 5 ) IN any case, it is open to the petitioner to approach the commissioner by way of appeal under Section 63 of the Andhra pradesh Excise Act, 1968. It may be noted here that a further revision is provided under S. 64 of the Act to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top