HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7119 of 2014 Date: 26.09.2014 Between:
Vasa Srisailam, s/o. Ramanarsaiah. .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Kusumanchi Police Station, Khammaml District, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. .. Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7119 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Khammam, dated 05.02.2014.
10 quintals of black jaggery and ½ quintal of alum were seized in respect of the offence under Section 34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act. The petitioner-accused sought for interim custody of the property seized. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed on 05.02.2014 holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction in view of Section 46-E of the A.P. Excise Act. Assailing the same, the present petition is filed.
I n M/s. Amruthavarshini Dairy Farms Private Limited v. The State (Criminal Revision Case No.2484 of 2012, dated 11.12.2012), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that criminal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim custody of the vehicle involved in offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. In P.
[1]
Swarupa v. State of A.P.
a Division Bench of this Court held that when a crime was registered either under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act or under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, criminal Courts have power to release the vehicle involved in the offence.
Basing on these two decisions, I passed orders in Criminal Revision Case No. 1114 of 2013 concluding that the petitioner whose stock is involved in an offence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act can seek for interim custody of the property seized. Same is the situation in the present case.
I see no reason to differ from this view of this Court. I consider that Section 46-E of the Act is not a bar for ordering interim custody of the property seized. The case is remitted to the trial Court for disposal of the application of the petitioner on merits. The trial Court shall treat that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Dr. Justice K.G. Shankar Date: 26.09.2014 Isn
[1] 1995 (3) ALD 1090 (DB)