The main legal point established in the judgment is that prima facie complicity in the commission of an offence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act can warrant no interference at the initial stage of investigation.

JUDGMENT

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.120 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chirala, Prakasam District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is A-5 in Crime No.120 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chirala, Prakasam District. A case under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act was registered against the petitioner along with the other accused on the ground that they are found to be in possession of liquor bottles.

4. The facts of the case show that on 20.04.2021 at 08:00 P.M., on the instruction of the Assistant Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau Station when the police conducted a raid on information received that liquor bottles are being illegally transported in certain vehicles, A-1 to A-3 were found to be transporting the liquor bottles unauthorizedly. During the course of inquiry of A-1 to A-3, who were apprehended along with the liquor bottles, it is revealed that the petitioner herein has been cooperating with A-1 to A-3 for illegal transportation and possession of the liquor bottles and that the petitioner herein on 19.04.2021 paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by Google Pay for the purpose of purchasing the liquor bottles. Therefore, the petitioner herein was also shown as A-5 in the above crime along with the other accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that liquor bottles were not found to be in possession of the petitioner, who is A-5, and nothing was seized from his possession and as such Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act is not attracted insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, she sought for quash of the F.I.R registered against the petitioner on the said ground.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the criminal petition, would submit that even though the petitioner was not found to be in possession of the said liquor bottles, it came to light during the course of inquiry while questioning the persons, who were arrested while they are transporting the liquor bottles, that the petitioner is involved in purchasing the said liquor bottles and that the petitioner is cooperating with A-1 to A-3 in transporting the same. Therefore, he would submit that Section 34(g) of the A.P.Excise Act is clearly attracted insofar as the petitioner, who is A-5, is concerned, which makes even buying any intoxicant an offence under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise Act. He would further submit that the investigation is only at the threshold and the actual role played by the petitioner herein is to be ascertained during the course of investigation. Therefore, he would submit that there are no valid legal grounds for quash of the F.I.R at this stage.

7. A perusal of the special report dated 20.04.2021 prepared at the time of seizing the liquor bottles while A-1 to A-3 have been transporting the same, discloses that on inquiry made after A-1 to A-3 were taken into custody that they revealed that the petitioner is cooperating with them in transporting the said liquor bottles and that the petitioner also paid Rs.20,000/- on 19.04.2021 i.e., on the previous day of offence through Google Pay for the purpose of purchasing the said liquor bottles. Therefore, the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the said offence in buying and transporting the liquor bottles along with A-1 to A-3 is prima facie apparent from the said special report. So, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise Act. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at the threshold and it requires full fledged investigation to find out the actual role played by the petitioner herein along with the other accused in commission of the said offence. Therefore, in the said facts and