APHC010161682021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2617/2021 Between:

Venkata Rao Sannapaneni ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.,‟) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Crime.No.138 of 2021 on the file of Vinukonda Town Police Station, Guntur District.

2. The allegations against the petitioner, as borne out from the police record, are that on 31.03.2020 at about 16:00 hours, while the respondent police were on routine patrolling duty in Vinukonda Town and, upon reaching the area near Sai Durga Transport situated on Marapuram Road, they noticed a person standing on the roadside in possession of certain boxes. On suspicion, when the police attempted to approach him, the said individual allegedly fled from the spot, abandoning the boxes. It is further alleged that, upon inspection, the said boxes were found to be 10 in number, each containing liquor bottles branded as “Old Admiral Special”, totaling 480 bottles of 180 ml each. It is further the case of the prosecution that, upon enquiry with the nearby persons, the identity of the said individual was revealed to be the present petitioner, namely Venkateswarlu Sannapaneni.

3. Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent, being an officer in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, is wholly bereft of statutory competence to effect seizure and detention of any excisable article under Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity „the Act‟), the said provision not vesting such authority in an officer of the said rank; it is further submitted that a conjoint and harmonious construction of Section 53 of „the Act.,‟ with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972, framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 72 read with Sections 52 and 53 of „the Act.,‟ unequivocally delineates that, insofar as police officials are concerned, only an officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is empowered to effect arrest without warrant, conduct searches, and seize articles liable for confiscation, while the said power is conferred upon Excise Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector and Revenue Officers not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction; it is thus urged that the impugned seizure having been effected by an officer lacking inherent jurisdiction is ex facie ultra vires the statutory mandate and consequently vitiates the entire proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the impugned search is vitiated by manifest non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of „the Act.,‟ inasmuch as the respondent has neither obtained a search warrant as contemplated under Section 54 of „the Act.,‟ nor adhered to the indispensable procedure prescribed under Section 55 of „the Act.,‟ which mandates the prior recording of grounds constituting “reason to believe” that an offence under Sections 34, 35, 36, 37 or 37-A of „the Act.,‟ has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, along with a further satisfaction that obtaining a warrant would afford an opportunity for the offender to escape or to conceal evidence; it is submitted that the absence of such recorded reasons and jurisdictional satisfaction renders the search ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of the statutory mandate, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings, and it is further contended that the invocation of Section 188 of „th