APHC010085582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1307/2026 Between:

1. J ULURI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 40 YRS R/AT D.NO. 168-1-98/1 TANGELLAMUDI , NEAR THILAK NAGAR,ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. J ULURI GANESH, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 38 YRS R/AT D.NO. 168-1-

98/1 TANGELLAMUDI NEAR THILAK NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the Sub Inspector of Police , Eluru II Town P.S., Eluru Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court atAmaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 in C.C.No.213 of 2025 (Crime No.721 of 2021 of Eluru II Town Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate- Cum-for Trial of cases under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act, Eluru, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the A.P.Excise Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr.R.Leela Sai Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as per Rule 2(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972 (‘the Rules), only certain cadres of officers are empowered to exercise powers under Section 52 of ‘the A.P. Excise Act’. He submits that N.R.Kishore Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, had registered the FIR without jurisdiction and that K.Sudhakar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and urged to dismiss the petition.

5. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.213/2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-for Trial of cases under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act, Eluru, are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?"

6. As seen from the record, an officer in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.721 of 201 under Section 34(a) of ‘the A.P. Excise Act’. Rules 2 and 3 of ‘the Rules.,’ lay down as under:

Rule-2. Officers authorised to enter and inspect places of manufacture and sale.--

(1) The Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise (Enforcement) the Superintendent for Distilleries, the Assistant Superintendent for Distilleries or any other Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector (under their administrative control) may exercise the powers, under clauses (a) and (c) of Section 52 of the Act and enter and inspect at any time, by day or by night any place in which any licensed manufactures or stores any intoxicant, examine the accounts or registers; and also [ examine, test, measure or weigh any materials, stills, utensils, implements, apparatus or intoxicant found in such place.

(2) The Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise (Enforcement) the Excise Superintendent, the Assistant Excise Superintendent or any other Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector having jurisdiction over the place may exercise the po