2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13579

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Venkata Rao Sannapaneni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2617/2021

Proceedings are liable to be quashed if a search and seizure are conducted by an officer lacking statutory jurisdiction, mandatory procedural safeguards regarding search are ignored, or a court takes cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Penal Code without a formal complaint by the public servant.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Inherent powers of High Court - Criminal petition challenging cognizance of offences in absence of required procedural compliance and lack of statutory jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 45, 46)

(B) Excise Act - Section 53 - Powers of search and seizure - Competency of officers - Statute confers powers of arrest and seizure upon police officers not below rank of Inspector, excise officers not below rank of Sub-Inspector, and revenue officers not below rank of Deputy Tahsildar - Exercise of such power by officer of lower rank is ultra vires and vitiates proceedings. (Paras 3, 38, 41-42)

(C) Excise Act - Sections 54 and 55 - Mandatory procedural safeguards - Requirement of search warrant or recording of “reason to believe” prior to search - Failure to comply with substantive protections intended to insulate citizens from arbitrary or vexatious prosecution renders search illegal and proceedings void ab initio. (Paras 4, 39)

(D) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195(1)(a)(i) - Bar on cognizance - Offence punishable under Section 188 of Penal Code - Requirement of written complaint by public servant concerned - Registration of FIR suo motu by police on basis of report by subordinate officer without requisite complaint is legally unsustainable. (Paras 6, 11-12, 31-33, 36) (E) Criminal Law - Single, indivisible transaction - Offences covered under jurisdictional bar cannot be artificially segregated to bypass statutory embargo - Inextricably interwoven offences require compliance with procedural mandates. (Paras 26, 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated for the seizure of contraband liquor. The police conducted a search and seizure during routine patrol duty. The petitioner contended that the officer conducting the search lacked statutory jurisdiction under the relevant Excise Act, failed to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure, and that the initiation of proceedings for disobedience of lawful orders was barred due to the lack of a formal complaint by the competent public servant as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the seizing officer, being of a lower rank than the threshold prescribed by statute, acted without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the mandatory procedural requirements for search were ignored. Finally, the court held that the criminal law bar concerning cognizance of offences against public servants was violated by the improper registration of the case.

Issues: Whether the search and seizure were conducted by an officer with statutory competence, whether mandatory procedural safeguards for search were followed, and whether the court could take cognizance of the offence under the Penal Code without a formal complaint from the public servant concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the entire proceeding was tainted by jurisdictional incompetence and procedural illegality. The lack of statutory authority for the seizure and the violation of the procedural bar against taking cognizance without a proper complaint constituted a manifest abuse of the process of law, necessitating the quashment of the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.