Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 827
2006 (5) ALT 739 (D.B.)
G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. and G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J.
Writ Appeal No.781 of 2006
Decided on 21-7-2006.
Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & I Excise, Karim Bagar and others.
vs.
Ch. Muthaiah & Co. rep. by its Proprietor, Ch. Raji Reddy
Advocate Appeared
Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the Appellants.
Mr. K. M. Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent.
Headnote:A.P. Excise Act, 1968 - Sections 13, 34(e), 45, 46 - Black Jaggery - possession of black jaggery meant to be used for manufacture of indexical punishable under section 34(e).
Held : the learned Single Judge committed serious error by nullifying the confiscation of black jaggery ignoring the law laid down by the majority of the Full Bench in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar (2supra). Undisputedly, the respondent does not have licence for manufacture, possession or sale of excisable articles. The facts brought on the record disclose that what the petitioner is said to have sold to Laxmi Kirana Merchants is jaggery weighing 60.11 quintals, though, as a matter of fact, the goods turned out to be black jaggery. The plea of the respondent that the goods were being transported from Kamareddy to Kataram and that the driver had missed the route was per se false and the Deputy Commissioner did not commit any illegality by refusing to accept the same because it is well known that Kamareddy to Kataram route is from Nizamabad to Karimnagar whereas Burugupally Thanda, Jaipur Mandai is in Adilabad. The two places are in opposite directions i.e. south and north of Karimnagar District and, therefore, it was impossible for the driver to miss the route and take the goods to Burugupally Thanda instead of Kataram. That apart, the statement made by Sri G. Srinivas to the effect that the black jaggery was meant to be delivered at Burugupally Thanda is sufficient to negate the story set up by the respondent. For the reasons best known to it, the respondent did not file affidavit of the driver Sri G. Srinivas to controvert the observations contained in order dated 11-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Deputy Commissioner that the respondent had transported the goods for being delivered to I.D. liquor manufacturers cannot be termed as erroneous or totally wide of the mark so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Clause (e) of Section 34 declares that whoever uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy can be proceeded against and punished. Sections 45 (1) provides for confiscation of any intoxicant, materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus in respect of or by means of which any offence has been committed under the Act. Section 45 (2) provides for confiscation of any intoxicant lawfully imported, transported, or manufactured and Section 45 (3) provides for confiscation of any receptacle, package or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under subsections (1) and (2) is found. Section 46 (1), which begins with a non-obstante clause, empowers the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to order confiscation of the property which is subject matter of offence.
A wholesome reading of Section 34 (e) shows that the Legislature has designedly made the actual manufacture as well as possession of any materials for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant without licence punishable. In other words, if a person is found in possession of any material intended to be used for manufacture of an intoxicant and he does not have the requisite licence, then he can be proceeded under Section 34 read with Sections 45 and 46. It is thus clear that if a person contravenes the provisions of the 1968 Act or of any rule made there under, and possesses any material which is intended to be used for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant, he can be proceeded against on the ground of violation of Section 34 (e). If the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on the plain language of Section 34 (e) is accepted, then Section 34 (e) will become otiose and redundant. Therefore, keeping in view the well recognized rule of interpretation that the Court should avoid an interpretation which may lead to surplusage or render a statutory provision redundant, we disapprove the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Ulli Bhaskar v. State of A.P. The ratio of Ulli Bhaskar v. State of A.P. (1 supra). The same clearly runs contrary "to the majority decision of the Full Bench in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar.
(Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.)
Whether 60.11 quintals of black jaggery belonging to the respondent M/s. Chidura Muthaih and Company could be confiscated by Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar (for short the Deputy Commissioner) by invoking the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short the 1968 Act) is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for setting aside order dated 7 -12-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16379 of 2005 whereby the quashed the confiscation of black jaggery.
The Facts:
2. The respondent is engaged in the business of agricultural products like paddy, maize, jaggery etc. It is said to have sold 60.11 quintals of jaggery on credit to Laxmi Kirana Merchants, Kataram, Karimnagar District. The jaggery was transported in a hired Eicher van bearing Registration No.AP-25T -8212. The vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Mancherial, Adilabad District on the premise that the jaggery was intended to be used for manufacturing I. D liquor. After two months, the Deputy Commissioner issued notice dated 20-1-2004 to the respondent requiring it to show cause against the proposed confiscation of the jaggery and vehicle used for its transportation on the ground of violation of Section 34 (e) read with Sections 45 and 46 of the 1968 Act. In the notice, it was alleged that the jaggery was being transported to Burgupalli Thanda, Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicant. In its reply dated 25-3-2004, the respondent took up the stand that the jaggery in question was sold on credit to Laxmi Kirana Merchants, Kataram and it was being transported with all valid documents. After considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 27 -5-2004 for confiscation of the black jaggery and vehicle. The appeal preferred against the order of confiscation was dismissed by the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh vide his order dated 11-2-2005.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that order are reproduced below:
"5. A perusal of the records reveals that the vehicle was involved in transportation of 60.11 quintals of Black Jaggery. As per way bill, the consignment of 60.11 quintals of jaggery was to be transported from Kamareddy to M/s.Laxmi Kirana Merchant, Kataram of Karimnagar District. But, the vehicle was caught by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mancheryal while transporting 60.11 quintals of black jaggery in 190 gunny bags in the limits of Burugupally Thanda, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District. The consignment was diverted instead of taking to the destination covered under the bills therefore, the contention that the driver was new and lost the way is not tenable and only created to escape the liability. The way bill issued by the Commercial Tax Department relates to jaggery but not black jaggery, hence the contention that the contraband was covered with valid bills is not tenable. The accused Srinivas in the panchanama stated that he was transporting the jaggery for supplying to the I.D. manufacturers. All the circumstances clearly proves that the black jaggery was being transported for supplying to I.D. manufacturers.
6. The Full Bench of the Honble High Court in W.P.No.19706/2000 held that the authorities can register a case U/s.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, if it is reasonably believed that the Black Jaggery is meant for preparation of 1.0. Liquor. The Chemical Examiner analysed samples and reported that the sample contains sugars and extraneous matter. It is jaggery fit for fermentation producing alcohol unfit for consumption.
The Sub-Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer reported that the Burugupalli Thanda is notorious for illicit distillation and that the accused were transporting the black jaggery to the I.D. Distillers of Burugupalli Thanda."
3. The respondent challenged the appellate or
