APHC010163352021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2630/2021 Between:

Ketha Satyanarayana @ketha Sathi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Babu AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.68 of 2021 registered on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram (South), Rajamahendravaram, for the offences punishable under Section 7(B) r/w (8B) of the A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020.

2. The petitioner herein is accused. The Sub-Inspector of SEB, Rajamahendravaram, South registered a case in Crime No.68/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w (8B) of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.18 of 2020, against the petitioner basing on the Special report. As per the Special report, on 13.01.2021, the Sub-Inspector of SEB, Rajamahendravaram, while conducting raids, they reached near Subbayamma Ghat in A.C.Garden Godavari bund area situated at A.C.Garden limits, Rajamahendravaram and they found two mica bags with a strong I.D liquor smell. They tried to secure mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. Thereafter, they verified the two mica bags and upon verification they found 100 litres of I.D Liquor each bag containing about 50 litres of I.D liquor packed in 20 polythene covers each containing about 5 litres of I.D Liquor to that they searched the owner of the property but in vain. Further they enquired about the owner of the said contraband, upon enquiry, the said contraband belongs to one Ketha Sathibabu and seized the two mica bags under the cover of Special report. Basing on the said Special report, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner/Accused. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, among other things, mainly challenges the validity of criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. He submits that before conducting search, the respondent- police ought to have obtained warrant as per Section 54 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 or otherwise, ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which the complainant-police did not do so. He further submits that the failure on the part of the respondent-police in following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, which is mandatory in nature, vitiates the entire proceedings against the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka, 1(1979) 2 SCC 115 , to contend that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 54 of the A.P. Excise Act, before proceeding to conduct a search by an officer and without prior recording of the grounds for his belief that an offence under the Act is likely or being committed, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a corollary, it vitiates the launching of criminal proceedings and on that ground alone, he prays for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that while the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB along with his staff, while conducting excise raids, they found alleged contraband and seized the m