To establish an offence under Section 34(a) of the AP Excise Act, 1968, the prosecution must affirmatively prove that the accused was in 'conscious possession' of the illicit substance; mere recovery from a common or accessible area while the accused is absent is insufficient to sustain criminal charges.

O R D E R

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.1030 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, arising out of a case in Crime No.19 of 2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Srikalahasti, registered against the petitioner/Accused, for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1968’).

2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioner/accused in the charge sheet, in brief, are that, on 12.03.2020 at about 12.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Vijayawada STF Team and respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Srikalahasti and other personnel went to the house of petitioner/accused and found that it was locked. They issued house search proceeding to one N.Siddaiah, residing in the ground floor of the building and on search, they found 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky per bottles pertaining to the Andhra Pradesh State Liquor (Duty Paid Liquor) without Holographic Excise Adhesive Labels (HEAL). The contraband was seized after collecting sample under the cover of a Panchanama, and pursuant to the same, a case in Crime No.19 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of the Act, 1968 was registered and investigated into. The petitioner/accused was granted anticipatory bail vide Order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2020 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. L.W5/Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the samples and opined that the seized contraband is of Indian Made Liquor. After receipt of all Analysis Report and after completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that as on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner/accused was not present. The Excise Police, on credible information, conducted raid and allegedly seized 19 nips of 9 Sea Horse Whisky bottles from the shoe rack in front of the petitioner’s house. Even accepting the said accusation, the offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act, 1968 would not be made out, for the reason that, the said contraband has not been seized from the possession of petitioner/accused, in fact, they were seized from the shoe-rack, kept outside the door of the house.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home too concurs with the fact that the alleged contraband was not seized from the possession of petitioner/accused, but it is contended that the shoe-rack from where the contraband was seized, belongs to the petitioner/accused and it was placed outside the house of the petitioner/accused and thereby, an inference can be drawn that the petitioner/accused was in possession of illicit contraband.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents/State and perused the entire material available on record.

6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or