Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 520
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
G. Madhusudhan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10289 of 2020, 14386 of 2020
Decided On : 01-09-2020
Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, Prabhala Raja Sekhar, Advocate
The possession or transportation of liquor and other intoxicants upto the limits as per G.O.Ms.No.441 is not an offence whether the liquor is purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh or if the liquor etc., is purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and is brought into the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Headnote:
EXCISE - AP EXCISE ACT, 1968 - SECTION 34(A) - G.O.MS.NO.411, DATED 24.09.2019 - POSSESSION OF LIQUOR - INTERPRETATION - STRICT INTERPRETATION OF PENAL PROVISIONS - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE, CONSUMPTION, MOVEMENT ETC., OF LIQUOR - STATE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS - G.O.MS.NO.411 STIPULATES MAXIMUM QUANTITY OF LIQUOR A PERSON CAN POSSESS WITHOUT PERMIT OR LICENSE - NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIQUOR MANUFACTURED IN ANDHRA PRADESH AND LIQUOR MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE ANDHRA PRADESH - POSSESSION OR TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR AND OTHER INTOXICANTS UPTO THE LIMITS AS PER G.O.MS.NO.441 IS NOT AN OFFENCE WHETHER THE LIQUOR IS PURCHASED IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH OR IF THE LIQUOR ETC., IS PURCHASED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND IS BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the registration of crimes against them under Section 34(A) of the AP Excise Act, 1968, for possessing liquor in excess of the limits prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019. They argued that the G.O. is an exception to the general rule and that it stipulates the limits upto which a person can freely carry intoxicants. The State contended that the petitioners had imported liquor into Andhra Pradesh without a permit and without paying duty, and that the State has the right to regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, transport etc., of liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the possession or transportation of liquor and other intoxicants upto the limits as per G.O.Ms.No.441 is not an offence whether the liquor is purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh or if the liquor etc., is purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and is brought into the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Issues: Whether the possession or transportation of liquor and other intoxicants upto the limits as per G.O.Ms.No.441 is an offence whether the liquor is purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh or if the liquor etc., is purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and is brought into the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 14 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 and G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019, and held that the G.O. permits the holding/possession of foreign liquor also which is obviously liquor from outside India itself. The Court further held that Section 14(2) of the Act does not make a distinction between liquor purchased outside the State and the liquor purchased in the State. The Court also held that a penal provision, like Section 34(1)(a) of the Act has to be interpreted strictly.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the first writ petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court dismissed the second writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies.
JUDGMENT
D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. - Both these writ petitions filed under Article 226 are taken up for hearing together with the consent of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Excise.
2. The prayer in W.P.No.14386 of 2020 is to declare the action of the 4threspondent in registering Crime No.95 of 2020 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, for the offence under Section 34 (A) of the A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 as illegal arbitrary etc.
3. In W.P.No.10289 of 2020 the prayer is for a mandamus against the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the Crime No.423 of 2020 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station for the offence under Section 34 (A) of the A.P. Excise Act as contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.411. Consequential prayers were also made in both these writ petitions.
4. The sum and substance of the controversy and the issue that is raised in these cases is that as per G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019, a person can carry three bottles of any size of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (in short "IMFL"). Both the counsel in the writ petitions have questioned the registration of the crimes on the ground that the liquor found was below the said limits and so the registration of the crimes in these cases is contrary to the very same G.O., which is referred to above.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, who appeared for the State has filed his counter affidavit in W.P.No.10289 of 2020. Therefore, the said matter was taken up for hearing first.
6. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10289 of 2020 has placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019 and argued that the said G.O. is an exception to the general rule and that it stipulates the limits upto which a person can freely carry intoxicants. Since the issue raised in this Writ Petition is about the IMFL, learned counsel points out that at any given point of time, without any permit or license a person can carry three bottles of any size. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the vehicle, which was seized, three persons were traveling and therefore the quantity of the liquor (7 bottles of hard liquor and 2 bottles of beer) that they were carrying is far below the stipulated limit. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the registration of a crime itself was incorrect as the three people in the car could carry upto 9 bottles of hard liquor and upto 18 bottles of beer. It is his contention that he sought permission for the interstate movement by applying for a car pass and that at that point of time three people were in the car. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the registration of the crime itself is incorrect. Learned counsel also relied upon two judgments reported in K.Prabhu v State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Patancheru and K. Venkata Rama Raju v State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that if the quantity of liquor carried is below the stipulated limit, registration of the crime itself is incorrect. Learned counsel relies upon the landmark judgment of State of Haryana and others v Ch. Bajanlal and Ors. , to argue that as the seizure of the alcohol and the registration of the case are not correct, this Court should interfere and pass orders quashing the case. He also argued that for IMFL it is stipulated as three bottles of any size. Therefore, learned counsel argued that once the duty has been paid in a neighboring State when the liquor was purchased the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot impose any further restriction on the possession or movement of the same contrary to the G.O. He points out that this would in fact amount to restriction on the free movement of goods, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also argued for some time on the payment of duty and a countervailing duty. But later h
